Functional improvement after cardiac rehabilitation is not related to improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction
| Autor: | A. Peretti, S. Sioli, Cristina Giannattasio, D. Caroti, S. Bordoni, G. Beretta, Francesca Casadei, G Santambrogio, B. De Chiara, Antonella Moreo, Francesco Musca, F. Esposito, N. Triglione, A.M. Pane, Oriana Belli, S. Riccobono, Francesca Spanò, L. Amoruso, Alessandro Maloberti, Laura Garatti |
|---|---|
| Přispěvatelé: | Maloberti, A, Peretti, A, Garatti, L, Triglione, N, Sioli, S, Bordoni, S, Amoruso, L, Caroti, D, Pane, A, Musca, F, Belli, O, De Chiara, B, Casadei, F, Sant’Ambrogio, G, Spanò, F, Esposito, F, Moreo, A, Beretta, G, Riccobono, S, Giannattasio, C, Spano’, F |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Ejection fraction Rehabilitation Physiology business.industry medicine.medical_treatment Internal medicine functional improvement cardiac rehabilitation left ventricular ejection fraction Internal Medicine medicine Cardiology cardiac rehabilitation improvement left ventricular ejection fraction Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine business |
| Popis: | Introduction: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) improves the functional capacity and the prognosis of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Similar results have also been found in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). Aim: To assess the relationship between functional improvement (evaluated with 6-minute walking test–6MWT) and the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after CR. Methods: we collected data from 260 patients that performed CR after an Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). The functional improvement after CR was expressed as the Δ between distance covered at the final versus the initial 6MWT normalized for the initial 6MWT, while LVEF was calculated with transthoracic echocardiogram at the beginning and at the end of the CR. Results: in the whole population functional improvement was 44.07% (baseline 6MWT 421.22 m vs follow-up 6MWT 597.28 m, p ≤ 0.05) while EF improvement was 2.48% (baseline EF 53.37% vs follow-up EF 55.91%, p ≤ 0.05). No significant correlation between the normalized Δmeter and ΔEF was founded. When patients were divided accordingly to their pre-rehab LVEF (≥ 55, 40–55 and |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|