IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i11p5826-d564641.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?

Author

Listed:
  • Kym Joanne Price

    (Discipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia)

  • Brett Ashley Gordon

    (Holsworth Research Initiative, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia)

  • Stephen Richard Bird

    (Discipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia)

  • Amanda Clare Benson

    (Department of Health and Biostatistics, Sport Innovation Research Group, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia)

Abstract

Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation was different between cardiovascular treatment, age, or initial physical capacity. The prescribed exercise of sixty patients who completed 12 sessions of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation at a major Australian metropolitan hospital was evaluated. The prescribed aerobic exercise dose was progressed using intensity rather than duration, while repetitions and weight lifted were utilised to progress resistance training dose. Cardiovascular treatment or age did not influence exercise progression, while initial physical capacity and strength did. Aerobic exercise intensity relative to initial physical capacity was progressed from the first session to the last session for those with high (from mean (95%CI) 44.6% (42.2–47.0) to 68.3% (63.5–73.1); p < 0.001) and moderate physical capacity at admission (from 53.0% (50.7–55.3) to 76.3% (71.2–81.4); p < 0.001), but not in those with low physical capacity (from 67.3% (63.7–70.9) to 85.0% (73.7–96.2); p = 0.336). The initial prescription for those with low physical capacity was proportionately higher than for those with high capacity ( p < 0.001). Exercise testing should be recommended in guidelines to facilitate appropriate exercise prescription and progression.

Suggested Citation

  • Kym Joanne Price & Brett Ashley Gordon & Stephen Richard Bird & Amanda Clare Benson, 2021. "Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5826-:d:564641
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5826/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5826/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juan Pedro Fuentes-García & Lorena Alonso-Rivas & José Javier Gómez-Barrado & Víctor Manuel Abello-Giraldo & Ruth Jiménez-Castuera & César Díaz-Casasola, 2021. "Modification of the Forms of Self-Determined Regulation and Quality of Life after a Cardiac Rehabilitation Programme: Tennis-Based vs. Bicycle Ergometer-Based," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-12, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5826-:d:564641. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.