Open AccessBeneficial effects of home‐based cardiac rehabilitation on metabolic profiles in coronary heart‐disease patients
Author(s) -
Chen JingTing,
Lin TsungHsien,
Voon WenChol,
Lai WenTer,
Huang MaoHsiung,
Sheu ShengHsiung,
Chen ChunKai
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
the kaohsiung journal of medical sciences
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.439
H-Index - 36
eISSN - 2410-8650
pISSN - 1607-551X
DOI - 10.1016/j.kjms.2016.04.014
Subject(s) - medicine , waist , metabolic syndrome , physical therapy , rehabilitation , anaerobic exercise , risk factor , cardiology , metabolic equivalent , obesity , physical activity
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in developed countries. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is associated with increased risk of CHD. Cardiac rehabilitation is considered an effective intervention and a Class I indication in patients with CHD. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of home‐based, integrated cardiac rehabilitation (HBICR) of patients with CHD in modifiable risk‐factor control and exercise capacity. Sixty‐four patients with CHD were investigated and randomized into intervention and control groups. The intervention group received a HBICR containing medication use, exercise program, smoking‐cessation counseling, and education regarding risk factors, nutrition, and the necessity of continuing the program, whereas the control group received traditional care. Baseline and follow‐up assessments at 3 months and 12 months, including body composition, metabolic syndrome risk score, and biochemical tests were performed in all patients. Additionally, cardiopulmonary function tests were also performed at baseline and 3‐month follow‐up assessments. There was a significant between‐group, within‐group, and interaction effect found in the MetS Z scores. Significant within‐group effects were also observed in modified Adult Treatment Panel III score, waist circumference, high‐density lipoprotein, and low‐density lipoprotein. However, several cardiopulmonary parameters did not differ significantly at 3‐month follow‐up between the two groups, including peak V̇O 2 , peak heart rate, peak respiratory exchange ratio, anaerobic threshold V̇O 2 , heart‐rate reserve, and heart‐rate recovery after 1 min and after 2 min. Our results showed that HBICR exhibited significant positive effects on modifiable risk‐factor control in CHD patients.