Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation improves peak VO2 in ~54% of patients, but only ~23% improve across multiple metrics.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation improves exercise capacity as assessed by different parameters, motivating evaluation of the effects of phase II cardiac rehabilitation on different exercise capacity measurements and the distribution of changes among patients.
Does phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve different measurements of exercise capacity (6MWT distance, peak VO2, and cycle ergometer workload) in patients with cardiac diseases?
Observational (n=295)
No
Does phase II cardiac rehabilitation improve different measurements of exercise capacity (6MWT distance, peak VO2, and cycle ergometer workload) in patients with cardiac diseases?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Although phase II cardiac rehabilitation improves overall exercise capacity, the classification of patients as responders varies substantially depending on whether peak VO2 or 6-minute walk distance is used as the assessment method.
Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves the prognosis of patients with cardiac diseases by, among other measures, improving exercise capacity (EC) as assessed according to different parameters. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of phase II of CR on the different measurements of EC and to assess the distribution of changes in these measurements among patients who underwent the intervention. Methods: From a single-center retrospective registry, records of 295 patients who underwent the six-minute walk test (6MWT) and cardiopulmonary exercise testing twice during CR were evaluated. The distance of the 6MWT, peak oxygen uptake (VO2) expressed in absolute values and as a percentage of predicted values, and workload on a cycle ergometer were assessed before and after CR and then analyzed. Results: Among the 295 patients (228 men, mean age 62 years [range: 55–69 years]), CR resulted in improvements in the median value of peak VO2 (approximately 1 mL/kg/min, 3% of the predicted value), workload (by approximately 5 watt), and 6MWT distance (by approximately 24 m, 5% of the predicted value). A total of 53.6% of the patients achieved an improvement in peak VO2 of ≥1 mL/kg/min and 44.1% of the patients achieved an improvement in 6MWT distance of >30 m. Simultaneous improvement in both peak VO2 and 6MWT distance was observed in 23% of the participants, whereas 26% did not achieve clinically meaningful improvement in either parameter. Conclusions: CR improved exercise capacity, although the proportion of patients who achieved clinically meaningful improvement differed substantially across the exercise capacity measurements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kurpaska et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cardiac diseases (n=295). Phase II cardiac rehabilitation vs. Baseline (pre-rehabilitation) was evaluated on Clinically meaningful improvement in exercise capacity measurements (peak VO2 ≥1 mL/kg/min and 6MWT distance >30 m). Phase II cardiac rehabilitation improved peak VO2 ≥1 mL/kg/min in 53.6% and 6MWT >30 m in 44.1% of patients, though only 23% improved in both parameters.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: