Aquatic therapies in patients with compromised left ventricular function and heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With water immersion, gravity is partly eliminated, and the water exerts a pressure on the body surface. Consequently there is a blood volume shift from the periphery to the central circulation, resulting in marked volume loading of the thorax and heart. This paper presents a selection of published literature on water immersion, balneotherapy, aqua exercises, and swimming, in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and/or stable chronic heart failure (CHF). Based on exploratory studies, central hemodynamic and neurohumoral responses of aquatic therapies will be illustrated. Major findings are: 1. In LVD and CHF, a positive effect of therapeutic warm-water tub bathing has been observed, which is assumed to be from afterload reduction due to peripheral vasodilatation caused by the warm water. 2. In coronary patients with LVD, at low-level water cycling the heart is working more efficiently than at lowlevel cycling outside of water. 3. In patients with previous extensive myocardial infarction, upright immersion to the neck resulted in temporary pathological increases in mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) and mean pulmonary capillary pressures (mPCP). 4. Additionally, during slow swimming (20-25m/min) the mPAP and/or PCP were higher than during supine cycling outside water at a 100W load. 5. In CHF patients, neck- deep immersion resulted in a decrease or no change in stroke volume. 6. Although patients are hemodynamically compromised, they usually maintain a feeling of well-being during aquatic therapy. Based on these findings, clinical indications for aquatic therapies are proposed and ideas are presented to provoke further research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".