4.5 Article

Exercise training in systolic and diastolic dysfunction: Effects on cardiac function, functional capacity, and quality of life

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 153, 期 4, 页码 530-536

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2007.01.004

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Exercise training improves functional capacity in patients with systolic dysfunction (SD), but the role of exercise training in diastolic dysfunction (DD) is unclear. We compared the responses of patients with exercise intolerance and SD or DD to 16 weeks of exercise training. Methods Fifty-one patients with SD and DD were enrolled in exercise training, which was completed in 24 patients with SD (22 men, 62 8 years old, ejection fraction < 35%) and 18 patients with DD (9 men, 65 5 years old, ejection fraction > 45%). Peak VO2, quality of life (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure and Hare-Davis questionnaires), and echocardiographic measures (ejection fraction, systolic and diastolic tissue velocity, and filling pressure) were performed at baseline and after 16 weeks of training. Results Patients with SD and those with DD showed similar baseline peak VO2 (11.9 +/- 2.5 vs 12.5 +/- 4.1 mL/[kg min], P =.55) and E/E' ratio (21 +/- 13 vs 14.4 +/- 15, P =.07), but different systolic velocity (3.4 +/- 1.0 vs 5.5 +/- 1.7 cm/s, P <.001), diastolic velocity (3.9 +/- 1.5 vs. 5.1 +/- 1.8 cm/s, P =.05), and ejection fraction (26 +/- 8% vs 55 +/- 9%, P <.001). Baseline quality of life scores were worse in patients with SD. There was a similar increment in peak VO2 in SD (24%, P =.001) and DD (30%, P <.001) after exercise training, but this did not correlate with improved diastolic parameters. Quality of life scores improved in both SD and DID, although SD scores remained significantly worse. Conclusions In patients with exercise limitation attributed to DD, the improvement in peak VO2 and quality of life with exercise training is similar to those with SD, but unrelated to changes in diastolic function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据