Article

AIM: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is a proven intervention that substantially
improves physical health and decreases death and disability following a
cardiovascular event. Traditional CR typically involves 36 on-site exercise
sessions spanning a 12-week period. To date, the optimal dose of CR has yet to be
determined. This study compared a high contact frequency CR programme (HCF, 34
on-site sessions) with a low contact frequency CR programme (LCF, eight on-site
sessions) of equal duration (4 months). METHODS: A total of 961 low-risk cardiac
patients (RARE score <4) self-selected either a HCF (n = 469) or LCF (n = 492) CR
programme. Cardiorespiratory fitness and cardiovascular risk factors were
measured on admission and discharge. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients
completed HCF (n = 346) and LCF (n = 351) (p = 0.398). Patients who were less fit
(<8 METs) were more likely to drop out of the LCF group, while younger patients
(<60 years) were more likely to drop out of the HCF group. Both groups
experienced similar reductions in weight (-2.3 vs. -2.4 kg; p = 0.779) and
improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness (+1.5 vs. +1.4 METs; p = 0.418).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the LCF programme achieved equivalent results to those
in the HCF programme. Certain subgroups of patients, however, may benefit from
participation in a HCF programme, including those patients who are predisposed to
prematurely discontinuing the programme and those patients who would benefit from
increased monitoring. The LCF model can be employed as an alternative option to
widen access and participation for patients who are unable to attend HCF
programmes due to distance or time limitations.
CI - (c) The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Langue : ANGLAIS