Key result
Virtual reality cardiovascular rehabilitation yielded similar improvements in functional capacity compared to conventional rehabilitation (6MWT distance increase of 32.25 m vs 54.00 m).
Why the study?
Does virtual reality cardiovascular rehabilitation improve body composition and functional capacity compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients with heart disease?
RCT (n=27)
Randomized
Does virtual reality cardiovascular rehabilitation improve body composition and functional capacity compared to conventional rehabilitation in patients with heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 32.25% vs 54%
Virtual reality cardiac rehabilitation improved functional capacity similarly to conventional rehabilitation but unexpectedly resulted in increased body fat percentage over an 8-week period.
Supports VR as a comparable alternative to conventional cardiac rehab; extends options for patients with access barriers.
Background: Virtual reality is an alternative therapeutic resource to be inserted into cardiovascular rehabilitation, stimulating the practice of physical activity through man-machine interaction. Objective: To compare the effects of conventional and virtual reality cardiac rehabilitation on body composition and functional capacity in patients with heart disease. Methods: Randomized clinical trial with 27 cardiac patients divided into conventional rehabilitation group (CRG) and virtual reality rehabilitation group (VRG). They underwent a rehabilitation program with 60-minute training sessions twice a week for eight weeks. The VRG training consisted of exercises from the Xbox 360® with Kinect(tm), using YourShape(tm) and Dance Central 3(tm) games. The CRG used conventional treadmills for aerobic exercise and free weights for resistance exercise. Bioimpedance and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were evaluated at baseline and after training. For main outcome analysis, Student t and Mann Whitney tests were used with a 5% significance level. Results: The VRG showed a significant increase in body fat percentage and fat weight when compared to the CRG, and a smaller amount of total water. There was a significant improvement in functional capacity evidenced by the increase in the distance covered in the 6MWT (54.00 m and 32.25 m in the CRG and VRG, respectively), but the gains did not differ between the groups. Conclusion: The two rehabilitation modalities had no effect on the body composition of the groups. In addition, the improvement in functional capacity was similar in both groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Heart diseases (n=27). Virtual reality cardiovascular rehabilitation vs. Conventional cardiovascular rehabilitation was evaluated on Increase in distance covered in the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in meters. Virtual reality cardiovascular rehabilitation yielded similar improvements in functional capacity compared to conventional rehabilitation (6MWT distance increase of 32.25 m vs 54.00 m).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: