Exercise training combined with electromyostimulation in the rehabilitation of patients with chronic heart failure: A randomized trial
Jazyk angličtina Země Česko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
23128847
DOI
10.5507/bp.2012.096
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- MeSH
- chronická nemoc MeSH
- elektrostimulační terapie * MeSH
- kombinovaná terapie metody MeSH
- kosterní svaly fyziologie MeSH
- kvalita života MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- spotřeba kyslíku MeSH
- srdeční selhání patofyziologie rehabilitace MeSH
- terapie cvičením * MeSH
- tolerance zátěže fyziologie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
AIM: Both aerobic training (AT) and electromyostimulation (EMS) of leg muscles improve exercise tolerance in patients suffering from chronic heart failure (CHF). It was speculated that combination of both methods might have an additive effect. This study was performed to evaluate the effects of a combination of AT and EMS in rehabilitation (RHB) of CHF patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n=71; age 59 ± 10.2 yrs, NYHA II/III, EF 32 ± 7.1%) were randomized into 3 groups: a) group AT, b) group EMS, and c) group AT+EMS. AT protocol included standard activity on bicycle 3x a week at the level of individual anaerobic threshold. EMS (10 Hz, mode 20s "on"/20s "off") was applied to leg extensors for 2 h/day. Total time of given type of RHB was 12 weeks. RESULTS: Data analysis revealed statistically significant improvements of patients in all experimental groups (averaged difference after 12 weeks of exercise as related to initial value: ∆VO2peak: +12.9%, ∆VO2AT: +9.3%, ∆Wpeak: +22.7%). No statistically significant difference among experimental groups was found. Quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure - MLHF) global score was significantly improved in all 3 groups: AT (∆MLHF: -27.9%; P=0.001), AT+EMS (∆MLHF: -29.1%; P=0.002), and EMS (∆MLHF: -16.6%; P=0.008). MLHF score in EMS group showed the smallest time-related improvement compared to AT and AT+EMS groups, and this difference in improvement between the groups was statistically significant (P=0.021). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found between the two types of exercise training.and nor did, their combination have any significant additional improvement.
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org
