Key result
Physical work capacity testing revealed a 30% reduction in average aerobic capacity in both coronary heart patients and cardiac neurotics, with ECG changes in two-thirds of coronary patients.
Why the study?
What is the physical work capacity and exercise tolerance in coronary heart patients compared to cardiac neurotics?
Cross-Sectional (n=32)
What is the physical work capacity and exercise tolerance in coronary heart patients compared to cardiac neurotics?
Coronary heart patients and cardiac neurotics both show reduced aerobic capacity, but coronary patients exhibit specific cardiac abnormalities like ECG changes and low systolic BP during heavy exercise.
Reduced aerobic capacity supports cautious exercise testing in both groups; leaves open shared mechanisms between coronary disease and neuroses.
Twenty‐four coronary heart patients and eight cardiac neurotics were tested physically by work loads up to maximum in order to assess their aerobic power and evaluate their work tolerance. The average aerobic capacity in both groups was reduced by 30%. The highest mean heart rate and the maximal oxygen pulse were also reduced. The average heart volume was normal. In coronary heart patients the systolic B.P. during exercise at high work loads tended to be low and ECG changes occurred in two thirds of them. The cardiac neurotics did not show these cardiac abnormalities. Only few of the coronary heart patients were able to perform heavy muscular exercise completely without signs and symptoms indicative of impaired myocardial function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Arne M. Benestad (1968) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary heart disease and cardiac neurosis (n=32). Physical work loads up to maximum (exercise testing) vs. Cardiac neurotics was evaluated on Aerobic power and work tolerance. Physical work capacity testing revealed a 30% reduction in average aerobic capacity in both coronary heart patients and cardiac neurotics, with ECG changes in two-thirds of coronary patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: