Key result
A 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improved peak VO2 (24.8 vs 21.2 ml/kg/min) and LV filling pressure in patients with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction after ACS.
Why the study?
The study examined the influence of a cardiac rehabilitation program on left ventricular diastolic dysfunction, functional capacity, and cardiovascular risk factors in patients after PCI for acute coronary syndrome.
Does a 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program improve left ventricular diastolic function and exercise capacity in patients treated with PCI after an acute coronary syndrome?
Observational (n=85)
Does a 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program improve left ventricular diastolic function and exercise capacity in patients treated with PCI after an acute coronary syndrome?
Absolute Event Rate: 24.8% vs 21.2%
p-value: p=< 0.001
A 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improves left ventricular diastolic function and exercise capacity in patients with preserved ejection fraction after an acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI.
CR may improve LVDD and capacity post-ACS; leaves open whether benefits exceed usual care in randomized trials.
Background Study examines the influence of cardiac rehabilitation program (CR) on left ventricular diastolic dysfunction (LVDD), functional capacity and major cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) in patients after with PCI resolved acute coronary syndrome (ACS).Methods We performed a non-randomised study included a total of 85 subjects after resolved ACS, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 45% and LVDD, without heart failure. Subjects were divided into control (N = 29) and intervention group (N = 56), depending on CR program attendance consisted of exercise training sessions for 12 weeks, 3 times per/week, 30 min per session. Initially and after 12 weeks, patients were subjected to echocardiography to assess LV filling pressure (E/e’) as well as CPET to asses improvement in peak VO2.Results Initially subjects were similar in CVRF, LVDD and CPET parameters (p > 0.05). Following CR, the intervention group demonstrated a significant improvement in E/e’ (8.0 ± 3.0 vs 7.0 ± 2.2; p < 0.05), compared to the control group (8.4 ± 3.0 vs 9.0 ± 3.1; p > 0.05), as well as a significant improvement in peak VO2 (23.2 ± 5.0 ml/kg/min vs 24.8 ± 5.8 ml/kg/min; p < 0.001). Control group also exhibited significant worsening in peak VO2 without CR (23.0 ± 4.0 vs 21.2 ± 4.1 ml/kg/min; p = 0.02). CVRF improved in both groups, except for glycaemia levels and body mass index, which improved only in the intervention group (p < 0.001).Conclusions Following ACS treated with PCI, CR had a positive effect on major CVRFs, the degree of LVDD and exercise capacity and should be considered as effective tool to reduce morbidity in such patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bjelobrk et al. (2021) conducted an observational in acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI (n=85). Cardiac rehabilitation program vs. Control (no cardiac rehabilitation) was evaluated on peak VO2 (ml/kg/min) (p=< 0.001). A 12-week cardiac rehabilitation program significantly improved peak VO2 (24.8 vs 21.2 ml/kg/min) and LV filling pressure in patients with left ventricular diastolic dysfunction after ACS.