Evaluating Exercise Progression in an Australian Cardiac Rehabilitation Program: Should Cardiac Intervention, Age, or Physical Capacity Be Considered?

Kym Joanne Price, Brett Ashley Gordon, Stephen Richard Bird and Amanda Clare Benson
Additional contact information
Kym Joanne Price: Discipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia
Brett Ashley Gordon: Holsworth Research Initiative, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, VIC 3550, Australia
Stephen Richard Bird: Discipline of Exercise Sciences, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC 3083, Australia
Amanda Clare Benson: Department of Health and Biostatistics, Sport Innovation Research Group, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, VIC 3122, Australia

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 11, 1-14

Abstract: Progression of prescribed exercise is important to facilitate attainment of optimal physical capacity during cardiac rehabilitation. However, it is not clear how often exercise is progressed or to what extent. This study evaluated whether exercise progression during clinical cardiac rehabilitation was different between cardiovascular treatment, age, or initial physical capacity. The prescribed exercise of sixty patients who completed 12 sessions of outpatient cardiac rehabilitation at a major Australian metropolitan hospital was evaluated. The prescribed aerobic exercise dose was progressed using intensity rather than duration, while repetitions and weight lifted were utilised to progress resistance training dose. Cardiovascular treatment or age did not influence exercise progression, while initial physical capacity and strength did. Aerobic exercise intensity relative to initial physical capacity was progressed from the first session to the last session for those with high (from mean (95%CI) 44.6% (42.2–47.0) to 68.3% (63.5–73.1); p < 0.001) and moderate physical capacity at admission (from 53.0% (50.7–55.3) to 76.3% (71.2–81.4); p < 0.001), but not in those with low physical capacity (from 67.3% (63.7–70.9) to 85.0% (73.7–96.2); p = 0.336). The initial prescription for those with low physical capacity was proportionately higher than for those with high capacity ( p < 0.001). Exercise testing should be recommended in guidelines to facilitate appropriate exercise prescription and progression.

Keywords: exercise prescription; exercise capacity; cardiovascular disease; coronary artery bypass surgery (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5826/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/11/5826/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:11:p:5826-:d:564641

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().