Is Exercise Blood Pressure Putting the Brake on Exercise Rehabilitation after Acute Type A Aortic Dissection Surgery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Exercise is recommended to improve physical fitness in patients recovering from acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD). However, surgery corrects the diseased blood vessels and reduces the risk of ATAAD, but it does not redefine a safe exercise blood pressure (BP) threshold. This review aimed to discuss whether the safe threshold of exercise BP can be upregulated after ATAAD surgery to increase exercise intensity with additional benefits. (2) Data sources: The PubMed databases were searched with the keywords "type A acute aortic dissection surgery", "exercise", "BP", "stress", and variations of these terms. (3) Study selection: Data from clinical trials, guidelines, and recent reviews were selected for review. (4) Results: Regular exercise can be considered a cardioprotective intervention for aortic dissection patients by attenuating hemodynamic responses at rest and during exercise. Previous studies have mainly focused on moderate-intensity aerobic exercise. In practice, the exercise systolic BP of some patients was higher than 160 mm Hg without adverse events, which indicates that the training intensity may be underestimated for patients after ATAAD surgery. Limited studies suggest a light-to-moderate resistance training for selected patients because it may cause a greater increase in BP. (5) Conclusions: Moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise supplemented by low-intensity resistance training is appropriate for cardiac rehabilitation after ATAAD surgery. The BP increase based on the normal exercise BP response, corresponding to the moderate-intensity is relatively safe. For high-risk post-ATAAD patients, considering the overall volume of training, personalizing the exercise regimen to remain within "safe" BP limits, and avoiding excessive fluctuations in BP should be the primary considerations for exercise training.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".