Key result
Nordic walking added to cardiac rehab increases 6-minute walk distance by ~91 meters.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of adding Nordic Walking training to standard cardiac rehabilitation on physical activity, capacity, quality of life, and proatherogenic risk factors in patients with chronic coronary syndrome after elective PCI.
Does adding Nordic Walking training to a standard cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical activity and capacity in patients with chronic coronary syndromes after elective percutaneous coronary intervention?
RCT (n=28)
Randomized into 2 groups
No
Does adding Nordic Walking training to a standard cardiac rehabilitation program improve physical activity and capacity in patients with chronic coronary syndromes after elective percutaneous coronary intervention?
Absolute Event Rate: 469.29% vs 378.57%
p-value: p=0.003
Integrating Nordic Walking into post-PCI cardiac rehabilitation programs provides additional improvements in aerobic capacity and walking distance compared to standard cycling exercise alone.
Supports adding Nordic Walking to post-PCI cardiac rehab to improve walking distance and capacity; extends evidence for adjunctive exercise modalities.
Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) is a worldwide method of coronary revascularisation. The aim of this study was to assess the immediate and long-term effects of Nordic Walking (NW) training added to a standard cardiac rehabilitation programme on physical activity (PA) and capacity and life quality, as well as selected proatherogenic risk factors. Methods: The studied group comprised 50 patients (considering exclusion criteria, 40 patients), aged 56–70, with CCS after elective PCI qualified them for a 6-weeks-long cardiac rehabilitation. The follow-up period lasted 4 months, and control visits occurred at 2 and 4 months. The studied patients were randomly divided into two groups: control group—standard cardiac rehabilitation programme and experimental group—standard cardiac rehabilitation programme additionally combined with NW training. Results: The cardiac rehabilitation programme in the experimental, compared to the control group, increased intense PA (from 731.43 ± 909.9 to 2740 ± 2875.96 vs. from 211.43 ± 259.43 to 582.86 ± 1289.74 MET min/week) and aerobic efficiency—VO2peak (from 8.67 ± 0.88 to 9.96 ± 1.35 vs. from 7.39 ± 2 to 7.41 ± 2.46 METs), as well as quality of life according to the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire (from 3.57 ± 0.51 to 4.14 ± 0.36 vs. from 3.29 ± 0.47 to 3.57 ± 0.51 points). The walking distance assessed with the 6-min walk test did not differ between the groups before the beginning of the rehabilitation programme. Both at the I follow-up and II follow-up time points, a significant increase in the walking distance was noted in the control and experimental groups compared to baseline, and the difference between both groups was significant at the end of follow-up (378.57 ± 71.35 vs. 469.29 ± 58.07, p = 0.003). Moreover, NW had a positive effect on the modulation within selected biochemical risk factors of atherosclerosis, as well as subjective quality of life and well-being. Conclusions: Introducing NW training into the cardiac rehabilitation process proved to be a more effective form of therapy in patients with CCS treated via PCI, as compared to the standard cardiac rehabilitation programme alone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Januszek et al. (2023) conducted an RCT in Chronic coronary syndrome after elective PCI (n=28). Nordic Walking training vs. Standard cardiac rehabilitation alone (interval exercise on a cycle ergometer) was evaluated on Walking distance assessed with the 6-min walk test at the end of follow-up (p=0.003). Nordic Walking added to standard cardiac rehabilitation significantly increased 6-minute walking distance (469.29m vs 378.57m, p=0.003) and aerobic efficiency compared to standard rehabilitation alone.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: