Long-term Physical Activity Behavior After Completion of Traditional Versus Fast-track Cardiac Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits associated with regular physical activity (PA), many cardiac patients fail to maintain optimal levels of PA after completing cardiac rehabilitation (CR). The long-term impact of different CR delivery models on the PA habits of cardiac patients is not completely understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to use a multisensor accelerometer to compare the long-term impact of a traditional versus fast-track CR on the PA of patients with coronary artery disease 6 months after CR entry. METHODS: Forty-four participants attended either traditional (twice a week, 12 weeks; n = 24) or fast-track (once a week, 8 weeks; n = 20) CR. Exercise capacity (ie, 6-minute walk test distance) and PA were assessed at baseline and at 12 weeks and 6 months after CR entry. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, exercise capacity increased significantly in both groups and remained elevated by the 6-month follow-up. Sedentary time decreased from baseline to 12 weeks. However, at 6 months, it was comparable with the baseline level. There was no significant change in any other PA marker (ie, steps/day, time in light and moderate-vigorous PA) over the course of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support the long-term effectiveness of CR on exercise capacity irrespective of the delivery model. However, participation in CR program, whether it be a traditional or fast-track CR exercise program, may not lead to long-term PA behavior change. Thus, CR participants may benefit from structured strategies that promote long-term PA adherence in addition to facilitating exercise capacity improvement.

The sustainability of exercise capacity changes in home versus center-based cardiac rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: Although participation in either center- or home-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) can improve exercise capacity, the sustainability of this improvement following completion of the CR program is challenging. The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate and 1-year effectiveness of center- versus home-based CR on exercise capacity in cardiac patients who were given the choice of participating in a center-based or home-based CR program. METHODS: This was a retrospective study, which relied on the database from a large multidisciplinary CR program. A sample of 3488 cardiac patients participated either in center-based (n = 2803) or home-based (n = 685) CR. Participants underwent exercise testing at baseline, after 12 weeks of CR and again 1 year after completion of the CR programs. RESULTS: Following CR, exercise capacity (ie, peak metabolic equivalents [METs]) increased significantly in both groups (P < .05). From post-CR to the 1-year followup, exercise capacity remained unchanged in home-based CR participants (P = .183), whereas the center-based CR group demonstrated a decline in exercise capacity (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although at the 1-year followup exercise capacity decreased in the center-based group, the observed decline did not seem to be clinically significant. The present findings indicate that when the patients were given a choice as to the delivery model (center- vs home-based) used for their CR program, they were relatively successful in retaining the improvement in exercise capacity 1 year post-CR irrespective of the exact location for their exercise training.