4.5 Article

Randornised controlled trial of cardiac rehabilitation in elderly patients with heart failure

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 411-417

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2004.10.004

关键词

heart failure; elderly; cardiac rehabilitation; functional status; health-related quality of life; multidisciplinary intervention

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Heart failure, a condition predominantly affecting the elderly, represents an ever-increasing clinical and financial burden for the NHS. Cardiac rehabilitation, a service that incorporates patient education, exercise training and lifestyle modification, requires further evaluation in heart failure management. Aim: The aim of this study was to determine whether a cardiac rehabilitation programme improved on the outcomes of an outpatient heart failure clinic (standard care) for patients, over 60 years of age, with chronic heart failure. Methods: Two hundred patients (60-89 years, 66% male) with New York Heart Association (NYHA) II or III heart failure confirmed by echocardiography were randomised. Both standard care and experimental groups attended clinic with a cardiologist and specialist nurse every 8 weeks. Interventions included exercise prescription, education, dietetics, occupational therapy and psychosocial counselling. The main outcome measures were functional status (NYHA, 6-min walk), health-related quality of life (MLHF and EuroQol) and hospital admissions. Results: There were significant improvements in MLHF and EuroQol scores, NYHA classification and 6-min walking distance (meters) at 24 weeks between the groups (p<0.001). The experimental group had fewer admissions (11 vs. 33,p<0.01) and spent fewer days in hospital (41 vs. 187, p<0.001). Conclusions: Cardiac rehabilitation, already widely established in the UK, offers an effective model of care for older patients with heart failure. (C) 2004 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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