J 2021

Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?

BAŤALÍK, Ladislav, G. PEPERA, J. PAPATHANASIOU, S. RUTKOWSKI, D. LISKA et. al.

Basic information

Original name

Is the Training Intensity in Phase Two Cardiovascular Rehabilitation Different in Telehealth versus Outpatient Rehabilitation?

Authors

BAŤALÍK, Ladislav (703 Slovakia, guarantor, belonging to the institution), G. PEPERA, J. PAPATHANASIOU, S. RUTKOWSKI, D. LISKA, K. BATALIKOVA, M. HARTMAN, Marián FELŠŐCI (703 Slovakia, belonging to the institution) and Filip DOSBABA (203 Czech Republic)

Edition

Journal of Clinical Medicine, Basel, MDPI, 2021, 2077-0383

Other information

Language

English

Type of outcome

Článek v odborném periodiku

Field of Study

30218 General and internal medicine

Country of publisher

Switzerland

Confidentiality degree

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

References:

Impact factor

Impact factor: 4.964

RIV identification code

RIV/00216224:14110/21:00122494

Organization unit

Faculty of Medicine

DOI

UT WoS

000700964300001

Keywords in English

cardiovascular rehabilitation; telehealth; physical exercise; coronary artery disease; heart rate disease; telerehabilitation; outpatient rehabilitation

Tags

Tags

International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 1/2/2022 11:11, Mgr. Tereza Miškechová

Abstract

V originále

Telehealth cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a feasible and effective alternative to conventional outpatient CR. Present evidence is limited on the comparison of exercise intensity adherence in telehealth and outpatient CR. The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare training intensity adherence through 12-week phase II CR in telehealth and outpatient CR. A sample of 56 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with a mean age of 56.7 +/- 7.1 entering comprehensive secondary prevention phase II was randomized into telehealth CR (n = 28) and control outpatient CR (n = 28) groups. The primary outcome was a comparison of training intensity adherence in both CR models and heart rate (HR) response from individual CR sessions, expressed by the HR reserve percentage. As a result, the parameter HR reserve percentage as the total average of the training intensity during the telehealth intervention and the outpatient CR did not differ statistically (p = 0.63). There was no death case, and all severe adverse cases required medical admission throughout an exercise training session in study subjects in both groups. This research evidence demonstrated that the telehealth CR model is similar in training intensities to the conventional outpatient CR in CAD patients with low to moderate cardiovascular risk.