Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation improves functional outcomes similarly in obese and non-obese patients despite no weight loss.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves outcomes in heart disease, but differences in comprehensive phase II cardiac rehabilitation outcomes between obese and non-obese patients required investigation.
Does comprehensive phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve functional outcomes differently in obese compared to non-obese patients with cardiovascular disease?
Cohort (n=178)
No
Does comprehensive phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve functional outcomes differently in obese compared to non-obese patients with cardiovascular disease?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves functional outcomes such as chronotropic competence and metabolic equivalents in both obese and non-obese patients, irrespective of weight loss, though blood pressure response improvement was limited to non-obese patients.
Cardiac rehabilitation may yield similar functional gains in obese and non-obese patients without weight loss; leaves open confirmation in randomized trials.
Background Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves outcomes in patients with heart disease. We investigated the differences in outcomes of comprehensive phase II CR in obese and non-obese patients. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of functional outcomes including metabolic equivalents (METS), heart rate (chronotropic competence - CC), and blood pressure response (BPR) in 178 patients undergoing CR based on underlying body mass index (BMI). Demographic and clinical variables were assessed for age, gender, race, smoking, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, stroke, heart failure, medication use, and several sessions attended. Results Initial CC and METS were impaired in majority of patients attending CR, whereas BPR to exercise was mostly preserved. Significant improvement occurred in CC (non-obese: 0.71 ± 0.11 vs 0.76 ± 0.11, p < 0.001; obese: 0.72 ± 0.10 vs 0.75 ± 0.12, p = 0.0010) and METS (non-obese: 4.96 ± 1.98 vs 7.33 ± 2.94, p < 0.001; obese: 4.39 ± 1.81 vs 6.79 ± 3.34, p < 0.001). Post-CR obese patients were able to reach similar level of physical activity as non-obese patients (6.79 ± 3.34 vs 7.33 ± 2.94; p = 0.2). Improvement in BPR was only seen in non-obese patients (24.02 ± 20.07 vs 30.18 ± 21.93; p = 0.019). Improvement in functional variables occurred despite increase in BMI in non-obese (25.91 ± 2.85 vs 26.21 ± 2.96; p = 0.031), and there was no significant change in BMI in obese (35.30 ± 5.60 vs 34.93 ± 5.42; p > 0.05). Conclusion CR concurrently improves functional outcomes in both obese and non-obese patients despite no associated weight loss. The difference in BPR, however, is seen in only non-obese individuals. Future studies are needed to validate the role of weight-optimized CR protocols as a potential target for improving cardiac outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Atti et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Cardiovascular disease (n=178). Cardiac Rehabilitation vs. Non-obese patients (BMI < 30 kg/m2) was evaluated on Post-rehabilitation Metabolic Equivalents (METS) (p=0.200). Cardiac rehabilitation improved functional outcomes in both groups, with obese patients reaching similar post-rehabilitation physical activity levels as non-obese patients (6.79 vs 7.33 METS, p=0.200) despite no associated weight loss.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: