RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Personal activity intelligence (PAI) is a single physical activity metric based upon heart rate responses to physical activity. Maintaining 100 PAI/week is associated with a 25% risk reduction in cardiovascular disease mortality and 50 PAI/week provides 60% of the benefits. The effect of utilising this metric within a cardiac population has not been previously investigated. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of PAI monitoring on the amount and/or intensity of physical activity for people in the maintenance phase of cardiac rehabilitation and to explore participants' perceptions of this approach. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods approach was undertaken. Participants in the maintenance phase of cardiac rehabilitation monitored PAI for six weeks via a wearable physical activity monitoring device (WPAM). In the first three weeks participants were blinded to their PAI score. A quality-of-life questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) was completed, and semi-structured interviews conducted to investigate attitudes to PAI monitoring. Daily PAI data was collected throughout the 6-week period. RESULTS: Twenty participants completed the trial. PAI earned/day was increased after participants could view their data (mean difference: 2.1 PAI/day (95% CI 0.3, 4.0), p = 0.027). The median change in percentage of days participants achieved a Total PAI score of 25 (p = 0.023) and 50 (p = 0.015) were also increased. The mean change in total scores for the EQ-5D-5L and EQVAS were improved after 6 weeks (0.6 ± 1.05; 95% CI (0.11-1.09); p = 0.019); (5.8/100; 95% CI (2.4-9.2); p = 0.002 respectively). Thematic framework analysis identified three global themes (perceptions on the WPAM, PAI and factors affecting exercise). Most participants stated motivation to exercise increased after they could view their PAI data. Many of the participants believed they would continue to use PAI long-term. Others were undecided; the latter primarily due to technical issues and/or preferring devices with greater functionality and attractiveness. All participants would recommend PAI. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study showed monitoring PAI via a WPAM increased the amount and/or intensity of physical activity within the cardiac population. Participants found PAI interesting, beneficial, and motivating. If technical issues, aesthetics, and functionality of the WPAM were improved, participants may continue to use the approach long-term. PAI may be a viable strategy to assist people with cardiac disease maintain physical activity adherence.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) is a component of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). However, life-long engagement in PA is required to maintain benefits gained. Wearable PA monitoring devices (WPAM) are thought to increase PA. There appear to be no reviews which investigate the effect of WPAM in cardiac populations. We firstly aimed to systematically review randomised controlled trials within the cardiac population that investigated the effect WPAM had through the maintenance phase of CR. We specifically examined the effect on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), amount and intensity of daily PA, and sedentary time. Secondly, we aimed to collate outcome measures reported, reasons for drop out, adverse events, and psychological impact from utilising a WPAM. METHODS: A systematic search (up to January 2019) of relevant databases was completed, followed by a narrative synthesis, meta-analysis and qualitative analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies involving 1,352 participants were included. CRF was improved to a greater extent in participants using WPAM with exercise prescription or advice compared with controls (MD 1.65 mL/kg/min;95% confidence interval [CI; 0.64-2.66]; p = 0.001; I2 = 0%). There was no significant between group difference in six-minute walk test distance. In 70% of studies, step count was greater in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however the overall effect was not significant (SMD 0.45;95% [CI; - 0.17-1.07] p = 0.15; I2 = 81%). A sensitivity analysis resulted in significantly greater step counts in participants using a WPAM with exercise prescription or advice and reduced the heterogeneity from 81 to 0% (SMD 0.78;95% [CI;0.54-1.02]; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Three out of four studies reporting on intensity, found significantly increased time spent in moderate and moderate-vigorous intensity PA. No difference between groups was found for sedentary time. Three of six studies reported improved psychological benefits.No cardiac adverse events related to physical activity were reported and 62% of non-cardiac adverse events were primarily musculoskeletal injuries. Reasons for dropping out included medical conditions, lack of motivation, loss of interest, and technical difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed WPAM with exercise prescription or advice are superior to no device in improving CRF in the maintenance phase of CR and no cardiac adverse events were reported with WPAM use. Our qualitative analysis showed evidence in favour of WPAM with exercise prescription or advice for both CRF and step count. WPAM with exercise prescription or advice did not change sedentary time. Psychological health and exercise intensity may potentially be enhanced by WPAM with exercise prescription or advice, however further research would strengthen this conclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42019106591.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: This study explored current demographics, characteristics, costs, evaluation methods, and outcome measures used in Australian cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. It also determined the actual usage and perceptions of high-intensity interval training (HIIT). METHODS: A cross-sectional observational web-based survey was distributed to 328 Australian CR programs nationally. RESULTS: A total of 261 programs completed the survey (79.6% response rate). Most Australian CR programs were located in a hospital setting (76%), offered exercise sessions once a week (52%) for 6-8 weeks (49%) at moderate intensity (54%) for 46-60 min (62%), and serviced 101-500 clients per annum (38%). HIIT was reported in only 1% of programs, and 27% of respondents believed that it was safe while 42% of respondents were unsure. Lack of staff (25%), monitoring resources (20%), and staff knowledge (18%) were the most commonly reported barriers to the implementation of HIIT. Overall, Australian CR coordinators are unsure of the cost of exercise sessions. CONCLUSION: There is variability in CR delivery across Australia. Only half of programs reassess outcome measures postintervention, and cost of exercise sessions is unknown. Although HIIT is recommended in international CR guidelines, it is essentially not being used in Australia and clinicians are unsure as to the safety of HIIT. Lack of resources and staff knowledge were perceived as the biggest barriers to HIIT implementation, and there are inconsistent perceptions of prescreening and monitoring requirements. This study highlights the need to educate health professionals about the benefits and safety of HIIT to improve its usage and patient outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Aerobic capacity has been shown to be inversely proportionate to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving cardiorespiratory fitness within the cardiac population. Previously published systematic reviews in cardiovascular disease have neither investigated the effect that the number of weeks of intervention has on cardiorespiratory fitness changes, nor have adverse events been collated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the cardiac population that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT and to collate adverse events. METHODS: A critical narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted after systematically searching relevant databases up to July 2017. We searched for RCTs that compared cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT interventions within the cardiac population. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, involving 953 participants (465 for HIIT and 488 for MICT) were included in the analysis. HIIT was significantly superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness overall (SMD 0.34 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.2-0.48]; p<0.00001; I2=28%). There were no deaths or cardiac events requiring hospitalization reported in any study during training. Overall, there were more adverse events reported as a result of the MICT (n=14) intervention than the HIIT intervention (n=9). However, some adverse events (n=5) were not classified by intervention group. CONCLUSION: HIIT is superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness are significant for CR programs of >6-week duration. Programs of 7-12 weeks' duration resulted in the largest improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness for patients with coronary artery disease. HIIT appears to be as safe as MICT for CR participants.
