Key result
Pilot RCT protocol evaluates the safety and feasibility of early moderate-intensity resistance training post-cardiac surgery.
Why the study?
Mild cognitive impairment is elevated after cardiac surgery, but the effects of resistance training on cognitive, functional, and overall recovery have not been investigated in this population.
Does early moderate-intensity resistance training demonstrate safety and feasibility compared to standard care in patients undergoing cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy?
RCT (n=20)
Open-label
1:1 block randomization
Yes
Does early moderate-intensity resistance training demonstrate safety and feasibility compared to standard care in patients undergoing cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy?
This study protocol outlines a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and cognitive effects of early moderate-intensity resistance training compared to standard care in patients following cardiac surgery.
Introduction: Mild cognitive impairment is considered a precursor to dementia and significantly impacts upon quality of life. The prevalence of mild cognitive impairment is higher in the post-surgical cardiac population than the general population, with older age and co-morbidities further increasing the risk of cognitive decline. This significantly impacts upon quality of life. Exercise improves neurogenesis, synaptic plasticity and inflammatory and neurotrophic factor pathways, which may help to augment the effects of cognitive decline. However, the effects of resistance training on cognitive, functional and overall patient-reported recovery have not been investigated in the surgical cardiac population. This study aims to determine the safety and feasibility of early moderate intensity resistance training in people undergoing cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy, compared to standard care. The effect of this exercise program on cognitive and functional recovery will also be examined. Methods: This study will be a prospective, pragmatic, pilot randomised controlled trial comparing a standard care group (low-intensity aerobic exercise) and a moderate-intensity resistance training group. Participants aged 18 years and older with coronary artery and/or valve disease requiring surgical intervention will be recruited pre-operatively and randomised 1:1 to either the resistance training or standard care group post-operatively. Feasibility and safety will be assessed through recruitment and retention rates; exercise program adherence; dropout rate; exercise and session stoppages due to pain, any adverse event or incident; and, any major adverse cardiac and cerebral events. Secondary measures include cognitive function, muscular strength, physical function, multiple-domain recovery, balance and patient satisfaction. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (pre-operatively) and post-operatively at 2 weeks, 8 weeks, 14 weeks and 6 months. Discussion: The results of this study will inform the safety and feasibility of early intervention resistance training for patients following cardiac surgery. In addition, this study will provide insights into the effect of resistance training on postoperative cognitive recovery to inform rehabilitation guidelines. Trial registration: This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ID: ACTRN12617001430325p. Registered on 9 October 2017. Universal Trial Number (UTN):U1111-1203-2131.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pengelly et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in Cardiac surgery via median sternotomy (n=20). Moderate intensity resistance training vs. Standard care (low intensity aerobic training) was evaluated on Safety and feasibility (recruitment rate, retention rate, exercise program adherence, dropout rate, adverse events, MACCE). This paper describes the protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early moderate-intensity resistance training following cardiac surgery.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: