Vol 73, No 9 (2015)
Original articles
Published online: 2015-04-28

open access

Page views 1431
Article views/downloads 1308
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Kardiologia Polska 2015 nr 9-13

ARTYKUŁ ORYGINALNY / ORYGINAL ARTICLE

Influence of a hybrid form of cardiac rehabilitation on exercise tolerance in coronary artery disease patients with and without diabetes

Dominika Szalewska1, Jarosław Tomaszewski1, Małgorzata Kusiak-Kaczmarek1, Piotr Niedoszytko1, Katarzyna Gierat-Haponiuk1, Ireneusz Haponiuk2, Stanisław Bakuła1

1Department of Rehabilitation, Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland
2Department of Physiotherapy, University of Physical Education and Sport in Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

Address for correspondence:
Dominika Szalewska, MD, PhD, Department of Rehabilitation, Medical University of Gdansk, Aleja Zwycięstwa 30, 80–219 Gdańsk, Poland, tel: +48 58 347 25 98, e-mail: dziel@gumed.edu.pl
Received: 19.11.2014 Accepted: 31.03.2015 Available as AoP: 28.04.2015

Abstract

Background: The effectiveness of stationary and ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes has been proven by some authors, but data concerning the effects of hybrid forms of cardiac rehabilitation (HCR) in this population are lacking. A home-based telerehabilitation is a promising form of secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in this group of patients.

Aim: The objective of the study was to compare the effects of HCR in CAD patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). The secondary endpoint was the assessment of CAD risk factors like low exercise capacity and obesity, in both groups of patients.

Methods: This was a retrospective study, which comprised 125 patients with CAD aged 57.31 ± 5.61 years referred for HCR. They were assigned to Group D (with diabetes; n = 37) or Group C (without diabetes; n = 88). HCR was carried out as a comprehensive procedure that included all core components of cardiac rehabilitation according to guidelines. Before and after HCR all patients underwent a symptom-limited exercise test performed according to the Bruce protocol on a treadmill.

Results: Before HCR the maximal workload was higher in Group C than in Group D (8.13 ± 2.82 METs vs. 6.77 ± 1.88 METs; p = 0.023), but after HCR the difference was not significant. In both groups an increase in the maximal workload after HCR was observed (Group D: before HCR 6.81 ± 1.91 METs, after HCR 8.30 ± 2.04 METs; p < 0.001; Group C: before HCR 8.31 ± 2.71 METs, after HCR 9.13 ± 2.87 METs; p = 0.001). Resting heart rate, double product, and heart rate recovery 1 (HRR1) declined in both groups. No significant differences in changes in exercise test parameters between both groups’ parameters were found.

Conclusions: HCR was effective in patients with DM. The adherence was high. Patients with DM had higher rates of obesity and significantly lower exercise tolerance than patients without DM. Patients from both groups gained similar benefit from HCR in terms of physical capacity, resting heart rate, and heart rate recovery.

Key words: cardiac rehabilitation, telerehabilitation, diabetes

Kardiol Pol 2015; 73, 9: 735–760

INTRODUCTION

The worldwide epidemic of diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) and an impaired prognosis after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), so patients with CAD and DM are in great need of attention [1].

An important tool to manage patients with CAD is cardiac rehabilitation (CR), which improves exercise tolerance, peripheral haemodynamic parameters, endothelial and autonomous nervous system functions, and quality of life, reduces total and cardiovascular mortality, and results in a modification of risk factors [2, 3]. Despite these well-established benefits, CR programmes in Europe are underused, with poor referral and low participation rates and wide variations between countries [4, 5].

The safety of stationary and ambulatory CR of patients with CAD and DM has been proven by some authors [6–8], but data concerning the effects of hybrid forms of cardiac rehabilitation (HCR) in this population are lacking. A promising form of secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in this group of patients is CR as Internet-based interventions or as home-based telerehabilitation [9–11].

The objective of the study was to compare the effects of a hybrid model of training, partly outpatient and partly home-based, and tele-monitored (HCR), in terms of physical capacity, in CAD patients with and without DM. The secondary endpoint was the assessment of CAD risk factors like low exercise capacity and obesity, in both groups of patients.

METHODS

This was a retrospective single-institution cohort study, which comprised patients referred for home-based cardiac tele­rehabilitation by the Polish Social Insurance Institution (PSII).

Patient population

The cohort group consisted of 155 patients aged 57.31 ± 5.61 years, who had a documented cardiovascular disease and were referred by the PSII for hybrid ambulatory followed by home-based cardiac telerehabilitation, phase III CR, from January 2010 to December 2013. From this group, 125 patients with a mean age of 58.25 ± 4.48 years (112 men and 13 women) with CAD were included in the study and then divided into two subgroups: Group D — with type 2 DM [12] (T2DM) and Group C — without DM. A total of 37 patients with T2DM (29.6% of all CAD patients) and 88 without DM were qualified for analysis.

Inclusion criteria were: documented CAD and no contraindications for exercise training. Exclusion criteria comprised unstable coronary or cerebral ischaemia, decompensated heart failure (HF), decompensated DM, recent aortic dissection, uncontrolled and malignant hypertension, unstable medical conditions, and the inability to exercise due to musculoskeletal and neuromuscular disorders. CR began no sooner than 12 weeks following the cardiovascular event. Patients with DM were treated in accordance with recent recommendations [9, 12].

Study protocol

The study was designed as a retrospective, non-randomised trial. Each patient gave written, institutional informed consent for participation in the programme. The patients underwent the following assessments at entry and after completing HCR: medical history, physical examination, and exercise treadmill test according to the Bruce protocol.

Exercise testing

Exercise capacity and cardiovascular response to exercise was assessed with a symptom-limited exercise test (ET) performed according to the Bruce protocol on a Woodway treadmill, using an electrocardiogram (ECG) Sun Tech Tango computerised system, before and after rehabilitation. A 12-lead ECG was monitored continuously before, during, and for 10 min after the test. During ET the following parameters were analysed: maximal workload (measured in metabolic equivalents — METs), heart rate per minute (HR, bpm) at rest and at maximal exercise, blood pressure (BP, mm Hg) at rest and at maximal effort, and double product (DP, mm Hg/min), i.e. the product of HR and systolic BP at rest and at maximal effort. Heart rate recovery (HRR1) in the first minute after the end of maximal exercise was used as the method to assess the reactivation of the parasympathetic nervous system [4]. Absolute indications for terminating of ET were as follows: ST-segment (> 1.0 mm) in leads without Q waves, drop in systolic BP > 10 mm Hg, moderate to severe angina, central nervous system symptoms or signs of poor perfusion (cyanosis or pallor), sustained ventricular tachycardia, technical difficulties in monitoring ECG or systolic BP, maximal perceived exertion (values > 18 of Borg scale), and subject’s request to stop [3].

Hybrid cardiac telerehabilitation

The first phase of HCR was carried out in an outpatient rehabilitation centre (8–10 days), and the second phase (11–12 days) was conducted in the home environment. The outpatient form of CR comprised exercise training, education intervention, relaxation sessions, and other secondary prevention strategies for risk factor modification [2]. The training HR for both outpatient and home-based exercise intensity, was calculated using the HR reserve method, based on data achieved in the exercise test [13]. The training zone (trHR) was calculated as follows: trHR = (60–80%) × (maximal HR – resting HR) + resting HR. In addition to the HR control, the Borg scale was used to gauge training intensity. Endurance exercises were a major component of activities, and the recommended training intensity was 12–13 on the Borg scale [4, 14, 15].

In the home-based phase patients performed aerobic endurance training based on different forms, i.e. walking or Nordic Walking or cycloergometer training for 30 min each, breathing exercises, flexibility exercises, and light resistance and systemic exercises. They were asked to exercise at a low intensity for 5 to 10 min before (warm-up) and after (cool-down) the training session. Patients were trained five times a week. All participants were given instructions on their medications and directions to the respective emergency department in case of an emergency. Home-based exercise training was monitored using remote-controlled equipment for tele-ECG and supervised exercise training (Pro Plus Company, Poland). The device enabled the recording of ECG data from three precordial leads and their transmission via a mobile phone network to the monitoring centre, which was located in the department of rehabilitation. A mobile phone was also used for daily voice communication between patient and a physician who asked about their state of health, and if there were no contraindications they were given consent for training [4]. The methods of HCR have been reported in detail elsewhere [4, 11]. In patients with DM blood glucose levels were initially obtained before and after exercise to provide an assessment of the individual’s response to exercise. Blood glucose levels < 100 mg/dL and > 300 mg/dL precluded exercise at that time.

Statistical analysis

The collected data were analysed using IBM SPSS version 21. To compare baseline characteristics between Group D and Group C the χ2 test was used. To compare the distribution of sex, taking insulin and oral glucose-lowering agents in patients with and without DM, the Fisher test was used because of the small size of the groups. Because of the lack of normal distribution the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the number of days of absence in patients with and without DM. Student’s t-test was performed to assess the independent and dependent samples for normally distributed variables, and the Wilcoxon test was used for variables not distributed normally in the analysis of effects of CR. P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant. The following variables were non-normally distributed: MET and change in MET, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class and change in NYHA class, and change in HR at rest.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics

Patients with DM had higher rates of obesity (p = 0.004) than patients without DM. Independence test χ2 showed statistically significant differences in the distribution of body mass index (BMI) in Group D and in Group C and moderate strength of association between groups (χ2 = 13.618; p = 0.003; V = 0.330). The highest differences between both groups were observed in the number of patients with BMI 26 (37.5% patients with DM and only 13.5% patients without DM) and in the group of patients with highest values of BMI (17% of patients with DM and 45.7% patients without DM had BMI higher than 32.73). In the middle ranges of BMI the differences between groups were lower and the percentage of patients with BMI between 26 and 29 and between 29 and 32.73 was approximately 20% in each group.

The significant relationship in the meaning of tendency to higher rates of arterial hypertension occured in the group without DM. Patients with DM had a tendency to take loop diuretics more frequently than patients from the control group. There were no significant differences in other baseline characteristics between both groups.

The baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of participants from both groups are summarised in Table 1.

Table 1. The baseline clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with diabetes (Group D) and without diabetes (Group C)

Group D (n = 37)

Group C (n = 88)

P

Males

34 (91.90%)

78 (88.60%)

0.75

Age [years]

59.16 ± 3.91

57.86 ± 4.66

0.115

Number of days of absence in the cardiac rehabilitation programme

1.22 ± 2.76

1.61 ± 4.51

0.94

Body mass index [kg/m2]

31.70 ± 4.4

28.55 ± 4.56

0.001

Current smoker

7 (21.20%)

15 (18.10%)

0.697

Smoking history

26 (81.30%)

65 (79.30%)

0.8

Myocardial infarction

26 (70.30%)

64 (72.70%)

0.78

Heart failure

5 (13.50%)

10 (11.40%)

0.767

Percutaneous coronary intervention

26 (70.30%)

62 (70.50%)

0.98

Coronary artery bypass grafting

6 (16.20%)

20 (22.70%)

0.413

Co-morbidities:

Arterial hypertension

34 (91.90%)

69 (78.40%)

0.071

Atrial fibrillation chronic or persistent

4 (10.80%)

3 (3.40%)

0.1

Hyperlipidaemia

19 (51.40%)

38 (43.20%)

0.403

Obesity

23 (62.20%)

30 (34.50%)

0.004

Overweight

14 (37.80%)

43 (49.40%)

0.236

Ca-blocker

10 (28.60%)

16 (18.60%)

0.226

Beta-blocker

34 (97.10%)

78 (91.80%)

0.283

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

23 (65.70%)

64 (75.30%)

0.285

Clopidogrel/dabigatran

16 (45.70%)

40 (47.10%)

0.893

Inhibitor PP

16 (45.70%)

37 (44.00%)

0.868

Aspirin

28 (80.00%)

77 (90.60%)

0.111

Statins

33 (94.30%)

78 (91.80%)

0.634

Fibrates

1 (2.90%)

2 (2.40%)

0.872

Loop diuretics

5 (14.30%)

4 (4.70%)

0.070

Oral anticoagulants

3 (8.60%)

7 (8.20%)

0.952

Insulin therapy

8 (22.90%)

0 (0.00%)

< 0.001

Oral glucose-lowering agents

25 (71.40%)

1 (1.20%)

< 0.001

Adherence

Out of 37 patients with DM, 36 patients completed the whole program. The reasons for discontinuation of the program were personal obligations. The mean number of days of absence in the HCR was 1.22 ± 2.76 days.

No tested patients were excluded from home-based training or finished the training earlier for major adverse cardiac events or other cardiovascular reasons.

Comparison of exercise capacity between patients with DM and without DM before and after HCR

Analysis was performed to determine whether there were important differences between the results of people with and without DM before and after rehabilitation. It revealed a statistically significant difference in the initial workload on the treadmill measured in METs between the groups. Before rehabilitation the maximal workload was significantly higher in patients without DM. The results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Comparison of exercise test results between patients with diabetes (Group D) and without diabetes (Group C) before and after hybrid form of cardiac rehabilitation (HCR)

Before HCR (Group D)

Before HCR (Group C)

P

After HCR (Group D)

After HCR (Group C)

P

Maximal workload [METs]

6.77 ± 1.88

8.13 ± 2.82

0.023

8.40 ± 2.04

9.13 ± 2.87

0.221

HR rest [bpm]

76.67 ± 12.71

79.81 ± 11.90

0.215

74.24 ± 10.61

72.48 ± 11.98

0.462

HR max [bpm]

126.03 ± 19.49

127.79 ± 19.55

0.648

129.56 ± 19.05

125.15 ± 10.36

0.284

SBP at rest [mm Hg]

137.92 ± 19.62

136.79 ± 15.93

0.738

134.74 ± 18.74

129.28 ± 18.91

0.161

DBP at rest [mm Hg]

84.32 ± 11.89

85.35 ± 13.48

0.689

82.91 ± 9.57

83.95 ± 12.06

0.657

SBP max [mm Hg]

168.35 ± 25.40

168.54 ± 26.34

0.971

172.00 ± 25.37

167.14 ± 25.88

0.359

DBP max [mm Hg]

85.35 ± 15.46

87.11 ± 13.88

0.537

87.71 ± 11.68

87.33 ± 13.68

0.889

DP at rest [mm Hg/min]

11031.22 ± 2455.47

10541.98 ± 2156.57

0.272

9987.53 ± 1905.83

9386.72 ± 2188.01

0.167

Maximal DP [mm Hg/min]

21324.81 ± 5169.13

21747.42 ± 5544.33

0.694

22488.12 ± 5837.83

21138.47 ± 5658.58

0.252

HRR1 [bpm]

98.32 ± 21.87

96.49 ± 17.81

0.628

94.50 ± 22.60

89.59 ± 17.47

0.213

NYHA

1.16 ± 0.50

1.18 ± 0.47

0.586

1.11 ± 0.40

1.12 ± 0.33

0.589

MET — metabolic equivalent, defined as the amount of oxygen consumed while sitting at rest and equal to 3.5 mL O2 per kg body weight × min; HR — heart rate; DBP — diastolic blood pressure; SBP — systolic blood pressure; DP — double product, i.e. product of heart rate and SBP; HRR1 heart rate recovery in the first minute after ending exercise stress test; NYHA — classification of New York Heart Association

Effects of CR on exercise capacity in patients with DM (Group D) and without DM (Group C)

In both groups a significant increase in the maximal workload on a treadmill after rehabilitation was observed. The value of resting HR and DP at rest declined. Similarly, in patients without DM (Group C) the value of the maximal workload on a treadmill also increased significantly, and resting HR and DP at rest declined. Moreover, resting systolic BP and HR in the first minute after the exercise test decreased significantly as well. The results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Results of exercise test in patients with diabetes (Group D) and without diabetes (Group C) before and after hybrid form of cardiac rehabilitation (HCR)

Before HCR (Group D)

After HCR

(Group D)

P

Before HCR (Group C)

After HCR (Group C)

P

Maximal workload [METs]

6.81 ± 1.91

8.30 ± 2.04

< 0.001

8.31 ± 2.71

9.13 ± 2.87

0.001

HR rest [bpm]

79.88 ± 12.41

74.24 ± 10.61

0.002

76.61 ± 12.52

72.48 ± 11.98

0.003

HR max [bpm]

126.59 ± 20.20

129.56 ± 19.05

0.299

127.94 ± 19.37

125.15 ± 10.36

0.171

SBP at rest [mm Hg]

137.97 ± 19.82

134.74 ± 18.74

0.260

136.14 ± 16.03

129.28 ± 18.91

0.001

DBP at rest [mm Hg]

83.15 ± 11.54

82.91 ± 9.57

0.898

85.03 ± 13.41

83.95 ± 12.06

0.502

SBP max [mm Hg]

169.00 ± 24.70

172.00 ± 25.37

0.565

168.33 ± 26.87

167.14 ± 25.88

0.667

DBP max [mm Hg]

83.74 ± 14.91

87.71 ± 11.68

0.157

86.87 ± 13.99

87.33 ± 13.68

0.793

DP at rest [mm Hg/min]

11046.09 ± 2524.28

9987.53 ± 1905.83

0.002

11041.38 ± 2132.13

9386.72 ± 2188.01

< 0.001

Maximal DP [mm Hg/min]

21495.65 ± 5205.55

22488.12 ± 5837.83

0.335

21762.87 ± 5636.35

21138.47 ± 5658.58

0.262

HRR1 [bpm]

99.32 ± 22.29

94.50 ± 22.60

0.090

96.66 ± 16.35

89.59 ± 17.47

0.001

NYHA

1.17 ± 0.51

1.11 ± 0.40

0.157

1.18 ± 0.47

1.12 ± 0.33

0.025

MET — metabolic equivalent; HR — heart rate; DBP — diastolic blood pressure; SBP — systolic blood pressure; DP — double product, i.e. product of heart rate and SBP; HRR1 — heart rate recovery in the first minute after ending exercise stress test; NYHA — classification of New York Heart Association

Differences in changes in ET parameters before and after CR in both groups

In the next step, differences in changes in ET parameters in patients with and without DM were calculated and compared. In order to analyse this the differences in the values before CR and after CR were calculated for every patient. No statistically significant differences in changes in ET between both groups’ parameters were found (Table 4).

Table 4. Comparison of changes in exercise test parameters in patients with diabetes (Group D) and without diabetes (Group C)

Group D

Group C

P

Maximal workload [METs]

–1.49 ± 2.08

–0.81 ± 1.91

0.133

HR rest [bpm]

5.65 ± 9.55

4.13 ± 11.97

0.475

HR max [bpm]

–2.97 ± 16.43

2.78 ± 17.92

0.112

SBP at rest [mm Hg]

3.24 ± 16.45

6.86 ± 17.44

0.305

DBP at rest [mm Hg]

0.24 ± 10.60

1.08 ± 14.19

0.757

SBP max [mm Hg]

–3.00 ± 30.12

1.19 ± 24.51

0.439

DBP max [mm Hg]

–3.97 ± 15.99

–0.46 ± 15.35

0.273

DP at rest [mm Hg/min]

1058.56 ± 1845.17

1054.66 ± 2100.43

0.993

Maximal DP [mm Hg/min]

–992.47 ± 5912.65

624.41 ± 4915.62

0.135

HRR1 [bpm]

4.82 ± 16.10

7.06 ± 17.42

0.523

NYHA

0.06 ± 0.23

0.06 ± 0.24

0.921

MET — metabolic equivalent; HR — heart rate; DBP — diastolic blood pressure; SBP — systolic blood pressure; DP — double product, i.e. product of heart rate and SBP; HRR1 — heart rate recovery in the first minute after ending exercise stress test; NYHA — classification of New York Heart Association

DISCUSSION

Cardiac telerehabilitation is a promising new tool to improve long-term adherence to a healthy lifestyle after centre-based CR and seems to be cost-effective [16, 17]. A hybrid model of training, partly outpatient and partly home-based, helps patients to learn how to exercise first in the centre during supervised sessions, is useful to acquire the habit of regular exercise training and gives time for education, psychological counselling, and pharmacological treatment optimisation. The growing population of patients with CAD in the world includes patients with DM. In randomised control trials, exercise training has beneficial effects on the indices of their physical function and glucose metabolism. It improves not only their muscular strength, flexibility, balance, agility, and endurance, but also mental health, anxiety, and insomnia. Moreover, it decreases levels of haemoglobin A1C [18, 19]. The main result of our study was that the HCR, partly outpatient and partly home-based and tele-monitored (HCR), enhanced functional capacity, measured via exercise test on a treadmill, and influenced some resting parameters as a result of exercise tolerance improvement in patients with DM.

Patients with DM referred by a social insurance institution for HCR had higher rates of obesity than patients without DM, while it is known that nearly 90% of diabetic patients develop T2DM mostly relating to excess body weight according to the World Health Organisation, so the role of education during rehabilitation programs in this group is not to be underestimated. Moreover, obesity is strongly inherited [20]. The results obtained from a study conducted with diabetic patients in Verona, who were followed up for 10 years, showed that in patients > 65 years old a moderate excess weight predicted longer survival, whereas obesity was a negative prognostic factor in patients < 65 years old [21]. The results concerning the effects of HCR on exercise capacity were not a surprise, as the adherence to the program was high. It seems that the ECG monitoring at home favours good compliance, which was also observed in patients with cardiovascular diseases rehabilitated by similar methods [4] and even in HF patients who performed Nordic Walking as a form of aerobic training [22]. Remote monitoring is used not only for telerehabilitation, but also for telecare of “cardiac” patients. De Lusignan et al. [23] showed good compliance with telemonitoring and telecoaching of patients with HF, while Lieback et al. [24] proved high compliance for remote telemonitoring using external sensors and implantable cardiac pacing devices in HF patients. Both studies were prospective and randomised. Unlike in the aforementioned papers, patients from our study were recruited from the population referred for rehabilitation by PSII, which could bias adherence. The mean number of days of absence was about one day in patients with and without DM. Patients from Group D had significantly lower exercise tolerance measured by METs than patients without DM before the study, but after CR these differences disappeared. Patients without DM improved their results but not as much as diabetic patients, who were probably more motivated. In the effect of rehabilitation, the changes in exercise tolerance remained non-statistically significant between both groups. Parameters from the ET demonstrate that exercise capacity improved similarly in the diabetic and non-diabetic groups, which means that patients from both groups gained similar benefit from five-week HCR in terms of physical capacity. ET was used to evaluate the safety of exercise training at various intensities and to formulate an exercise prescription. The ET results in our study were obtained using the Bruce treadmill protocol because of the assumed time efficiency of using this protocol compared with time-consuming low-intensity protocols and in order to compare results obtained by the same method, although there have been very few reports in the literature of patients with coronary disease and HF undergoing exercise testing on this protocol (in our study 12% patients suffered from HF). In fact, it is widely felt that the Bruce protocol is too vigorous for patients with HF, but in literature we can find evidence that it is safe even in severe HF patients. Strzelczyk et al. [25] claim that the Bruce treadmill protocol can be used to assess ambulatory patients with severe systolic HF for cardiac transplant listing.

Differences in exercise performance and effects of ambulatory or stationary CR between diabetic and non-diabetic patients are well documented in the literature, but it seems that together with the technological progress in medicine, the home-based or hybrid form of rehabilitation will be more and more available for patients with CAD in the future, so it is reasonable to focus on these forms of treatment in the research concerning CR.

To date, there have been only a few studies assessing the effects of a HCR in patients suffering from cardiovascular diseases, but there is no data concerning patients with CAD and DM. Thus, our contribution seems valuable for future application of this relatively cheap form of treatment in the increasing population of patients with diabetes.

Limitations of the study

The study was designed as a retrospective non-randomised trial without a control group, which made it impossible to do a direct comparison other than to say that HCR in patients with CAD and diabetes is feasible, that adherence by patients is good, and participants improved their exercise tolerance. Another study limitation is the lack of the analysis of BMI after HCR and other factors concerning diabetes care and treatment, like plasma glucose level deviations during exercise sessions, haemoglobin A1C tests or assessment of the intensity and change in diabetes-related complications like retinopathy, nephropathy, or neuropathy, which will be the subject of further scientific consideration.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present study we showed that: (1) Hybrid form of CR was effective in patients with DM; (2) The adherence to the program was high; (3) Patients with DM had higher rates of obesity than patients without DM; (4) Patients with DM had significantly lower exercise tolerance measured by METs than patients without DM; (5) Patients from both groups gained similar benefit from HCR in terms of physical capacity, resting HR, and heart rate recovery.

Conflict of interest: none declared

References

  1. 1. Ryden L, Standl E, Bartnik M et al. Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: Executive summary. Eur Heart J, 2007: 28: 88–136.
  2. 2. Piepoli MF, Corra U, Benzer W et al. Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation: From knowledge to implementation. A position paper from the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil, 2010: 17: 1–17.
  3. 3. Fletcher GF, Balady GJ, Amsterdam EA et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 2001: 104: 1694–1740.
  4. 4. Piotrowicz E, Korzeniowska-Kubacka I, Chrapowicka A et al. Feasibility of home-based cardiac telerehabilitation: results of TeleInterMed study. Cardiol J, 2014; 21: 539–546. doi: 10.5603/CJ.a2014.0005.
  5. 5. Kotseva K, Wood D, De Backer G, et al. EUROASPIRE III Study Group Use and effects of cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the EURO­ASPIRE III survey. Eur J Prev Cardiol, 2013; 20: 817–826. doi: 10.1177/2047487312449591.
  6. 6. Zielińska D, Bellwon J, Biernat A et al. Safety and efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation following coronary revascularisation in patients with diabetes. Kardiol Pol, 2009: 67: 940–945.
  7. 7. Lindstrom JK, Toumilehto J. The diabetes risk score: a practical toll to predict type 2 diabetes risk. Diabetes Care, 2003: 26: 725–731.
  8. 8. Sigal RJ, Kenny GP, Wasserman DH et al. Physical activity/exercise and type 2 diabetes. Diabets Care, 2004: 27: 2518–2539.
  9. 9. Ryden L, Standl E, Bartnik M et al. Task Force on Diabetes and Cardiovascular Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC); European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD). Guidelines on diabetes, pre-diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases: executive summary. Eur Heart J, 2007: 28: 88–136.
  10. 10. Pietrzak El, Cotea C, Pullman S. Primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Is there a place for Internet-based interventions? J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev, 2014; 34:303–317. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000063.
  11. 11. Korzeniowska-Kubacka I, Bilińska M, Dobraszkiewicz-Wasilewska B et al. Comparison between hybrid and standard centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in female patients after myocardial infarction: a pilot study. Kardiol Pol, 2014: 72: 269–274. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2013.0283.
  12. 12. Position Statement: American Diabetes Association, Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes — 2014. Diabetes Care, 2014; 37: suppl. 1: S14–S80
  13. 13. Goldberg L, Elliot DL, Kuehl KS. Assessment of exercise intensity formulas by use of ventilatory threshold. Chest, 1988: 94: 95–98.
  14. 14. Borg, G. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 1982: 14: 377–381.
  15. 15. Piotrowicz R, Wolszakiewicz J. Cardiac rehabilitation following myocardial infarction. Cardiol J, 2008; 15: 481–487.
  16. 16. Kortke H, Stromeyer H, Zittermann A et al. New East-Westfalian Postoperative Therapy concept: a telemedicine guide for the study of ambulatory rehabilitation of patients after cardiac surgery. Telemed J E Health, 2006; 12: 475–483.
  17. 17. Piotrowicz E, Piotrowicz R. Cardiac telerehabilitation: current situation and future challenges. Eur J Prev Cardiol, 2013; 20 (2 suppl.): 12–16.
  18. 18. Park SY, Lee IH. Effects on training and detraining on physical function, control of diabetes and anthropometrics in type 2 diabetes: a randomized controlled trial. Physiother Theory Pract, 2014: 18: 1–6 [Epub ahead of print].
  19. 19. Sardar MA, Boghrabadi V, Sohrabi M et al. The effects of aerobic exercise training on psychosocial aspects of men with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glob J Health Sci, 2014; 20: 196–202.
  20. 20. Walley AJ, Blakemore AI, Froguel P. Genetics of obesity and the prediction of risk for health. Hum Mol Genet, 2006;15 (Spec No. 2): R124–R130.
  21. 21. Zoppini G, Verlato G, Leuzinger C et al. Body mass index and the risk of mortality in type II diabetic patients from Verona. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 2003; 27: 281–285.
  22. 22. Piotrowicz E, Zieliński T, Bodalski R et al. Home-based telemonitored Nordic walking training is well accepted, safe, effective and has high adherence among heart failure patients, including those with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: a randomised controlled study. Eur J Prev Cardiol, 2014; Sep 26. pii: 2047487314551537. [Epub ahead of print].
  23. 23. De Lusignan S, Wells S, Johnson P et al. Compliance and effectiveness of 1 year’s home telemonitoring. The report of a pilot study of patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail, 2001; 3: 723–730.
  24. 24. Lieback A, Proff J, Wessel K et al. Remote monitoring of heart failure patients using implantable cardiac devices and external sensors: results of the Insight-HS study. Clin Res Cardiol, 2012; 101: 101–107.
  25. 25. Strzelczyk TA, Cusik DA, Pfeifer PB et al. Value of the Bruce protocol to determine peak exercise oxygen consumption in patients evaluated for cardiac transplantation. Am Heart J, 2001; 142: 466–475.

 

Cite this article as: Szalewska D, Tomaszewski J, Kusiak-Kaczmarek M et al. Influence of a hybrid form of cardiac rehabilitation on exercise tolerance in coronary artery disease patients with and without diabetes. Kardiol Pol, 2015; 73: 753–760. doi: 10.5603/KP.a2015.0088.




Polish Heart Journal (Kardiologia Polska)