Assessment of Two Training Modalities Effects on Exercise Tolerance after a Cardiac Rehabilitation Program and 3 Months Later in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Physical training is recommended as an efficient therapy in patients with coronary disease. However its effects should depend on its modalities. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of continuous and interval training after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). Methods. Twenty-three male patients (59.5 ± 1.2 yr) underwent a randomized physical training using continuous (C, n=10) or interval (IT, n=13) modalities, over 3 weeks (5 h. a week). All patients performed a symptom-limited exercise test with measurements of ventilatory threshold (VT) and peak workload (WL), oxygen uptake (VO2) and heart rate (HR), before, at the end and 3 months after the training period. They also completed the SF-36 questionnaire to assess their quality of life. Results. Both C and IT improved WL and VO2 at VT (P < 0.05) and at peak exercise (P < 0.05). Only IT increased peak HR and HR reserve (P < 0.01). In both groups quality of life was improved (P < 0.05). In both groups, compared to after training, the 3-months assessment showed an increase in peak and ventilatory threshold WL, and in peak HR (P < 0.05) without any change in peak VO2 and VT HR. No difference was observed between groups whatever the period studied. Back to home, in accordance with the given recommendations, most of the patients carried on their physical training over 3 months. They performed either outside walking (n=9) or cycling sessions (n=1) or both activities (n=11). No difference concerning the global training schedule was noted regardless their group (5.4 ± 1.2 vs. 6.0 ± 1.1 h.week-1 for C and IT, respectively). Conclusions. In off-pump CABG patients, similar improvements of exercise capacity and quality of life perception were observed after both C and IT programs. Only peak HR was increased after interval training. Thus, IT is a good alternative to C training in this population. Aerobic fitness still remained stable or increased after 3 months of individual practice which duration exceeded the minimal values recommended.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".