4.5 Article

Does eccentric endurance training improve walking capacity in patients with coronary artery disease? A randomized controlled pilot study

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 24, 期 7, 页码 590-599

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215510362322

关键词

-

资金

  1. University Hospital of Dijon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine the effect of eccentric endurance training on exercise capacities in patients with coronary artery disease. Design: Randomized parallel group controlled study. Setting: Cardiac rehabilitation unit, Dijon University Hospital. Participants: Fourteen patients with stable coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention. Intervention: Patients followed 15 sessions of training (1 session per day, 3 days a week), either in the concentric group, following a standard programme, or in the eccentric group, performing eccentric resistance exercises using both lower limbs on a specifically designed ergometer. Main outcomes measured: Symptom-limited Vo(2), peak workload, isometric strength of leg extensor and ankle plantar flexors, distance covered during the 6-minute walk test and time to perform the 200-m fast walk test in both groups, before and after the training period. Results: Patients did not report any adverse effects and were highly compliant. All measured parameters improved in eccentric and concentric group, except for 200-m fast walk test: symptom-limited Vo(2) (+14.2% versus +4.6%), peak workload (+30.8% versus +19.3%), 6-minute walk test distance walked (+12.6% versus +10.1%) and leg extensor strength (+7% versus +13%) improved to a similar degree in both groups (P < 0.01); ankle plantar flexor strength improved in both groups with a significantly greater increase in the eccentric group (+17% versus +7%, P < 0.05). Conclusion: Patients with stable coronary artery disease can safely engage in eccentric endurance training, which appears to be as efficient as usual concentric training, with reduced oxygen consumption.

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