Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation comprehensively manages risk factors to reduce recurrence after cardiovascular disease treatment, but the comparative effects of home-based low-frequency versus center-based high-frequency programs needed evaluation.
Does center-based high-frequency cardiac rehabilitation improve risk factors, physical fitness, and quality of life compared to home-based low-frequency cardiac rehabilitation in middle-aged women who underwent coronary artery stenting?
Does center-based high-frequency cardiac rehabilitation improve risk factors, physical fitness, and quality of life compared to home-based low-frequency cardiac rehabilitation in middle-aged women who underwent coronary artery stenting?
While center-based high-frequency cardiac rehabilitation provides greater improvements in obesity factors, HDL, and glucose, home-based low-frequency rehabilitation remains a viable alternative that improves fitness, quality of life, and several cardiovascular risk factors in women after coronary stenting.
High-frequency training may improve select risk factors more than low-frequency; leaves open optimal cardiac rehabilitation delivery post-stenting.
Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a system that comprehensively manages risk factors to reduce the recurrence rate after cardiovascular disease treatment. This study compared the effects of home-based low-frequency CR (1–2 times/week) and center-based high-frequency CR (3–5 times/week) for 12 weeks. This study was conducted as an observational case-control study. Ninety women, ages 45 to 60, who underwent coronary artery stenting were enrolled. Measurement variables were waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP), total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC), triglycerides (TG), glucose, VO2 peak, body composition, and quality of life. Significant changes were observed in systolic BP, TC, LDLC, TG, VO2 peak, exercise duration, and quality of life in both groups. However, BMI, waist circumference, body fat percentage, HDLC, and blood glucose only exhibited significant changes with HFT. The interaction effects according to time and group were as follows: systolic BP, waist circumference, body fat, BMI, HDLC, and glucose (p < 0.05). Therefore, in CR participants, HFT improved more than LFT on obesity factors, HDLC, and glucose change. As well as center-based HFT, home-based LFT also improved risk factors for cardiovascular disease, fitness, and quality of life. For female patients who have difficulty visiting the CR center frequently, home-based LFT may be a CR program that can be presented as an alternative.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: