摘要
目的 探讨有氧康复运动治疗慢性心力衰竭的疗效及安全性.方法 回顾性分析120例慢性心衰患者的临床资料,在基础药物治疗前提下,根据有无实施有氧康复治疗随机分为2组:A组60例为有氧康复治疗组,B组60例为未实行有氧康复治疗组即对照组.A组患者自入院开始即开始康复运动,心功能Ⅱ级以上者严格按照有氧康复运动方案进行锻炼.比较两组入院及1年后NYHA心功能分级、BNP、LVEF、LVED、6min步行试验距离、再住院率及死亡率.结果 A、B两组组内比较,1年后NYHA心功能分级,BNP、LVEF、LVED均较入院时好转(P<0.05).A、B两组组间比较,人院时NYHA心功能分级,BNP、LVEF、LVED差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),1年后A组患者明显优于B组患者(P<0.05),且6min步行距离较B组明显增加(P<0.05),再住院率及死亡率下降(P,<0.05).结论 有氧康复运动作为药物治疗的补充,安全有效,适宜慢性心力衰竭患者二级预防治疗.
Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of aerobic exercise rehabilitation in chronic heart failure. Methods A retrospective analysis of 120 patients with chronic heart failure. All the patients were divided into 2 groups according to whether the implementation of aerobic exercise rehabilitation. Group A was the aerobic rehabilitation group with 60 cases. Group B was the control group with 60 cases. Group A patients from admission to start rehabilitation exercise, to the heart function 11 more strictly in ac- cordance with the exercise rehabilitation exercise program with oxygen. The NYHA, BNP, EF, LVED, 6 min- utes walk test distance,rehospitalization rate and mortality were observed from hospital admission to 1 year later. Results After one year,the NYHA, BNP, EF, LVED were better than from admission within A and B groups (P〈0.05). The NYHA, BNP, EF, LVED had no significant change in A and B groups from ad- mission(P〉0.05). But the A group was significantly higher than that of B group (P〈0.05) after one year. The 6 minutes walking distance was larger than that of the B group (P〈0.05) and readmission and mortality de- creased (P〈0.05) after 1 year. Conclusion Supplemental aerobic exercise rehabilitation as drug therapy is safe and effective, suitable for secondary prevention therapy in patients with chronic heart failure secondary prevetion.
出处
《中国心血管病研究》
CAS
2013年第11期873-875,共3页
Chinese Journal of Cardiovascular Research
关键词
有氧康复运动
慢性心力衰竭
二级预防
Aerobic exercise rehabilitation
Chronic heart failure
secondary prevetion