Key result
Complementary resistance and balance training with mechanical devices during short-term cardiac rehabilitation more effectively reversed slow gait speed to normal compared to usual care (p < 0.05).
Why the study?
Frailty identification is not routinely included in cardiac rehabilitation evaluations, and evidence is lacking regarding the optimal training regimen to improve physical performance in frail individuals.
Does complementary resistance and balance training improve gait speed in older frail and vulnerable patients after acute coronary syndrome during cardiac rehabilitation?
RCT (n=97)
randomly allocated
Does complementary resistance and balance training improve gait speed in older frail and vulnerable patients after acute coronary syndrome during cardiac rehabilitation?
p-value: p=<0.05
Complementary resistance and balance training, particularly with mechanical devices, effectively improves gait speed in frail older adults undergoing short-term cardiac rehabilitation after acute coronary syndrome.
Supports adding device-based resistance and balance training to short-term CR for frail post-ACS patients; extends rehab evidence on gait speed reversal.
Background and Objectives: The world’s population is rapidly aging, and it is estimated that, by 2050, every sixth person on earth will be older than 65 years. Around 30% of older adults entering cardiac rehabilitation (CR) meet the criteria of frailty. Frailty identification has not been included in the routine evaluation of CR patients yet, and there is a lack of evidence on what training regimen for improving physical performance in frail people is optimal. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of frailty and to evaluate the effect of two different complementary training programs on the gait speed of older vulnerable and frail patients with acute coronary syndrome and mid-range-to-preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥40%) during short-term CR. Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted from January 2020 to September 2021. CR participants (n = 97) with a mean age of 73.1 ± 5.3 years were randomly allocated into three groups: control (CG, n = 32), intervention-1 (IG-1, n = 32) and intervention-2 (IG-2, n = 33). The patients of all three groups attended a usual inpatient CR program, and two intervention groups additionally received different resistance and balance training programs 3 days a week: the IG-1 underwent complementary training with traditional means of physical therapy, while the IG-2 underwent complementary training with mechanical devices. The mean CR duration was 18.9 ± 1.7 days. Frailty was assessed with the Edmonton Frail Scale, and the 5 m walk test was used to evaluate gait speed. Results: Frailty was determined in 37.1% of participants, and 42.3% met the criteria of being vulnerable. After CR, the gait speed of frail and vulnerable patients significantly improved in all three groups (p < 0.05). In the IG-2, slow gait speed was reversed to normal in the overwhelming majority of patients (p < 0.05), while the CG had the greatest proportion of patients who remained to be slow after CR (p < 0.05). Conclusions: A considerable part of patients entering CR are frail or vulnerable; therefore, it is of crucial importance to assess frailty status in all older people. All three CR programs improved gait speed in frail and vulnerable older patients with ischemic heart disease. Complementary resistance and balance training with mechanical devices more effectively reversed slow gait speed to normal during short-term CR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beigienė et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in acute coronary syndrome with mid-range-to-preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥40%) (n=97). Complementary resistance and balance training vs. Usual inpatient cardiac rehabilitation program was evaluated on gait speed (p=<0.05). Complementary resistance and balance training with mechanical devices during short-term cardiac rehabilitation more effectively reversed slow gait speed to normal compared to usual care (p < 0.05).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: