Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a methodology that has profoundly affected the approach to patients' functional evaluation, linking performance and physiological parameters to the underlying metabolic substratum and providing highly reproducible exercise capacity descriptors. This study provides professionals with an up-to-date review of the rationale sustaining the use of CPET for functional evaluation of cardiac patients in both the clinical and research settings, describing parameters obtainable either from ramp incremental or step constant-power CPET and illustrating the wealth of information obtainable through an experienced use of this powerful tool. The choice of parameters to be measured will depend on the specific goals of functional evaluation in the individual patient, namely, exercise tolerance assessment, training prescription, treatment efficacy evaluation, and/or investigation of exercise-induced adaptations of the oxygen transport/utilization system. The full potentialities of CPET in the clinical and research setting still remain largely underused and strong efforts are recommended to promote a more widespread use of CPET in the functional evaluation of cardiac patients.

Skeletal muscle atrophy in HD patients contribute to their poor exercise tolerance. The application of an exercise training rehabilitation programme improved muscle atrophy markedly, and therefore had beneficial effects in overall work performance.

Functional capacity of end-stage renal disease patients is dramatically impaired. Although exercise training programs appear to have beneficial morphological, functional and psychosocial effects in end-stage renal disease patients on hemodialysis (HD), the adherence rate is high. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of three modes of exercise training on aerobic capacity and to identify the most favourable, efficient and preferable to patients on HD with regard to functional improvements and participation rate in the programs. Fifty-eight volunteer patients were screened for low-risk status and selected from the dialysis population. The 48 patients who completed the study protocol were randomly assigned either to one of the three training groups or to a control group. Sixteen of them (Group A - mean age 46.4+/-13.9 years) completed a 6-month supervised outpatient exercise renal rehabilitation program consisting of three weekly sessions of aerobic and strengthening training on the non-dialysis days; 10 (Group B - mean age 48.3+/-12.1 years) completed a 6-month exercise program during HD; 10 (Group C - mean age 51.4+/-12.5 years) followed an unsupervised moderate exercise program at home, and 12 patients (Group D-mean age 50.2+/-7.9 years) were used as patient controls. The level of anemia, the medications and the HD prescription remained stable during the study. Fifteen sex- and age-matched sedentary individuals (Group E - mean age 46.9+/-6.4 years) comprised a healthy control group for baseline data. All subjects at the beginning and end of the study underwent clinical examination, laboratory tests and a treadmill exercise test to fatigue endpoints with direct measurement of aerobic capacity. Group A had a higher dropout rate (24%) compared to groups B (17%) and C (17%). Peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak) increased by 43% (p < 0.05), anaerobic threshold (VO2AT) by 37% (p < 0.05) and exercise time by 33% (p < 0.05) after training in Group A; by 24% (p < 0.05), 18% (p < 0.05) and 22% (p < 0.05), respectively, in B; and by 17% (p < 0.05), 8% (p < 0.05) and 14% (p < 0.05), respectively, in C; while both remained almost unchanged in Group D. These results demonstrate that intense exercise training on non-dialysis days is the most effective way of training, whereas exercise during HD is also effective and preferable.

The results demonstrated that intradialytic exercise training improves both physical functioning and psychological status in haemodialysis patients, leading to an improvement of patients' quality of life.

In a previous paper, as the first of a series of three on the importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity (PA) and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health within the general population, we concluded that, in the population at large, PA and aerobic exercise capacity clearly are inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and that a dose–response curve on cardiovascular outcome has been demonstrated in most studies. More and more evidence is accumulated that engaging in regular PA and exercise interventions are essential components for reducing the severity of cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity and abdominal fat, high BP, metabolic risk factors, and systemic inflammation. However, it is less clear whether and which type of PA and exercise intervention (aerobic exercise, dynamic resistive exercise, or both) or characteristic of exercise (frequency, intensity, time or duration, and volume) would yield more benefit for each separate risk factor. The present paper, therefore, will review and make recommendations for PA and exercise training in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. The guidance offered in this series of papers is aimed at medical doctors, health practitioners, kinesiologists, physiotherapists and exercise physiologists, politicians, public health policy makers, and individual members of the public. Based on previous and the current literature overviews, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding type, volume, and intensity of PA and regarding appropriate risk evaluation during exercise in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors.

BackgroundDespite the epidemic of cardiovascular disease and the benefits of cardiac rehabilitation (CR), availability is known to be insufficient, although this is not quantified. This study ascertained CR availability, volumes and its drivers, and density.MethodsA survey was administered to CR programs globally. Cardiac associations and local champions facilitated program identification. Factors associated with volumes were assessed using generalized linear mixed models, and compared by World Health Organization region. Density (i.e. annual ischemic heart disease [IHD] incidence estimate from Global Burden of Disease study divided by national CR capacity) was computed.FindingsCR was available in 111/203 (54.7%) countries; data were collected in 93 (83.8% country response; N = 1082 surveys, 32.1% program response rate). Availability by region ranged from 80.7% of countries in Europe, to 17.0% in Africa (p < .001). There were 5753 programs globally that could serve 1,655,083 patients/year, despite an estimated 20,279,651 incident IHD cases globally/year. Volume was significantly greater where patients were systematically referred (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.35–1.38) and programs offered alternative models (OR = 1.05, 95%CI = 1.04–1.06), and significantly lower with private (OR = .92, 95%CI = .91–.93) or public (OR = .83, 95%CI = .82–84) funding compared to hybrid sources.Median capacity (i.e., number of patients a program could serve annually) was 246/program (Q25-Q75 = 150–390). The absolute density was one CR spot per 11 IHD cases in countries with CR, and 12 globally.InterpretationCR is available in only half of countries globally. Where offered, capacity is grossly insufficient, such that most patients will not derive the benefits associated with participation.

Cardiac autonomic modulation seemed to be sensitive to the experience of persistent depression in HD patients. Significantly, exercise training reduced emotional distress and concomitantly improved HRV.

No abstract