Predictors of Improvement in Exercise Capacity After Cardiac Rehabilitation Differ Between Octogenarian and Young-Old Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Whether the magnitude and predictors of improvement in exercise capacity after cardiac rehabilitation (CR) are the same between young-old (YO) and octogenarian (OCT) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is unknown.Methods and Results: We studied 284 YO (age range 65-69 years; mean [±SD] 67±1 years) and 65 OCT (age range ≥80 years; mean [±SD] 83±2 years) patients who participated in a post-AMI CR program. After 3 months of CR, peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing improved significantly in both age groups (P<0.01), although the percentage increase in PV̇O2(%∆PV̇O2) was significantly smaller in the OCT than YO group (5.4±13.7% vs. 10.0±12.8%; P<0.01). Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that independent predictors of %∆PV̇O2were the number of outpatient CR (OPCR) sessions attended (P=0.015), left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.028), and baseline PV̇O2(P=0.0007) in the YO group; and the number of sessions attended (P=0.018), atrial fibrillation (P=0.042), and the presence of nutritional risk (Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index ≤98; P=0.036) in the OCT group. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors of improvement in exercise capacity after CR differed between the YO and OCT patients with AMI. To obtain a greater improvement in PV̇O2in CR, frequent OPCR session attendance may be necessary in both groups; in addition, particularly in OCT patients, better nutritional status may be important.

Exercise-Based Cardiac Rehabilitation Improves Exercise Capacity Regardless of the Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ECR) enhances exercise capacity. This study examined the relationship between the 2 responses.Methods and Results:Sixty-four consecutive HFrEF patients who participated in a 3-month ECR program after CRT were investigated. Patients were categorized according to a median improvement in peak oxygen uptake (PV̇O2) after ECR of 7% as either good (n=32; mean percentage change in PV̇O2[%∆PV̇O2]=23.2%) or poor (n=32; mean %∆PV̇O2=2.5%) responders. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the good and poor responders, except for PV̇O2(51% vs. 59%, respectively; P=0.01). The proportion of good CRT responders was similar between the good and poor responders (%∆LVEF ≥10%; 53% vs. 47%, respectively; P=NS). Overall, there was no significant correlation between %∆LVEF after CRT and %∆PV̇O2after ECR. Notably, among poor CRT responders (n=32), the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (0% vs. 29%; P<0.03) and baseline PV̇O2(48% vs. 57%; P<0.05) were significantly lower among those with a good (n=15) than poor (n=17) response to ECR. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HFrEF, good ECR and CRT responses are unrelated. A good PV̇O2response to ECR can be achieved even in poor CRT responders, particularly in those with a sinus rhythm or low baseline PV̇O2.

Efficacy and safety of remote cardiac rehabilitation in the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases (RecRCR study): A multicenter, nonrandomized, and interventional trial in Japan.

Backgrounds: Remote cardiac rehabilitation has proven useful in patients with cardiovascular disease; however, the methodology had not been fully validated. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of remote cardiac rehabilitation (RCR) with real-time monitoring and an ergometer using a bidirectional communication tool during the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: This multicenter, nonrandomized, interventional study was conducted at 29 institutions across Japan and enrolled patients with cardiovascular diseases who met indications for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after receiving in-hospital treatment. The RCR group exercised at home using an ergometer and was monitored in real-time using interactive video and monitoring tools for 2-3 months. Educational instructions were provided concurrently through e-learning approaches. The safety of the RCR protocol and the improvement in peak oxygen consumption (VO2) were compared with those of the historical control group that participated in center-based CR. Results: Fifty-three patients from the RCR group were compared with 103 historical controls having similar background characteristics. No patients in RCR experienced significant cardiovascular complications while engaging in exercise sessions. After 2-3 months of RCR, the peak VO2 improved significantly, and the increases in the RCR group did not exhibit any significant differences compared to those in the historical controls. During follow-up, the proportion of patients whose exercise capacity increased by 10% or more was also evaluated; this finding did not indicate a statistically significant distinction between the groups. Conclusions: RCR during the recovery phase of cardiovascular diseases proved equally efficient and safe as center-based CR.