Key result
Mean cardiovascular exercise training intensity during a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme was 37% of heart rate reserve, falling below the recommended minimal threshold of 40%.
Why the study?
Sub-optimal exercise dose was suspected of contributing to variability in the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation programmes in the United Kingdom.
Does a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation program achieve the minimal recommended exercise intensity in cardiac patients?
Observational (n=30)
No
Does a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation program achieve the minimal recommended exercise intensity in cardiac patients?
Effect estimate: Standardised effect size 1.1 (95% CI 0.563-1.669)
Absolute Event Rate: 37% vs 31%
Patients in a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation program exercised at an intensity below the minimal recommended guidelines, potentially explaining the variable effectiveness of such programs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Community-based Phase III rehab often delivers subthreshold intensity; hypothesis-generating for whether meeting guidelines improves outcomes.
Khushhal et al. (2019) conducted an observational in Cardiovascular disease (n=30). Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme vs. Active recovery phases was evaluated on Mean % heart rate reserve during cardiovascular training (%HRR-CV) vs active recovery (%HRR-AR) (Standardised effect size 1.1, 95% CI 0.563-1.669). Mean cardiovascular exercise training intensity during a community-based Phase III cardiac rehabilitation programme was 37% of heart rate reserve, falling below the recommended minimal threshold of 40%.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: