ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To assess methods for determination of exercise intensity, and to investigate practice variation with respect to the contents, volume and intensity of exercise training programs in Dutch cardiac rehabilitation (CR) centres. METHODS: A paper questionnaire was sent to all Dutch CR centres, consisting of 85 questions for patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or after coronary revascularisation (Group 1) and for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF, Group 2). RESULTS: CR professionals from 45 centres completed the questionnaires (58 %). Symptom-limited exercise testing was used to determine exercise capacity in 76 % and 64 % of the CR centres in group 1 and group 2, respectively; in these centres, a percentage of the maximum heart rate was the most frequently used exercise parameter (65 % and 56 %, respectively). All CR centres applied aerobic training and the majority applied strength training (64 % in group 1 and 92 % in group 2, respectively). There was a considerable variation in training intensity for both aerobic and strength training, as well as in training volume (1-20 h and 1-18 h respectively). CONCLUSION: Among Dutch CR centres, considerable variation exists in methods for determination of exercise intensity. In addition, there is no uniformity in training volume and intensity.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In 2004, the Netherlands Society of Cardiology released the current guideline on cardiac rehabilitation. Given its complexity and the involvement of various healthcare disciplines, it was supplemented with a clinical algorithm, serving to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. Although the algorithm was shown to be effective for improving guideline adherence, several shortcomings and deficiencies were revealed. Based on these findings, the clinical algorithm has now been updated. This article describes the process and the changes that were made. METHODS: The revision consisted of three phases. First, the reliability of the measurement instruments included in the 2004 Clinical Algorithm was investigated by evaluating between-centre variations of the baseline assessment data. Second, based on the available evidence, a multidisciplinary expert advisory panel selected items needing revision and provided specific recommendations. Third, a guideline development group decided which revisions were finally included, also taking practical considerations into account. RESULTS: A total of nine items were revised: three because of new scientific insights and six because of the need for more objective measurement instruments. In all revised items, subjective assessment methods were replaced by more objective assessment tools (e.g. symptom-limited exercise instead of clinical judgement). In addition, four new key items were added: screening for anxiety/depression, stress, cardiovascular risk profile and alcohol consumption. CONCLUSION: Based on previously determined shortcomings, the Clinical Algorithm for Cardiac Rehabilitation was thoroughly revised mainly by incorporating more objective assessment methods and by adding several new key areas.
