Jean-Yves Tabet, Philippe Meurin, Ahmed Ben Driss, Gabriel Thabut, Helene Weber, Nathalie Renaud, Ngaralbaye Odjinkem, Alain Cohen Solal
{"title":"心肌梗死后β受体阻滞剂患者运动训练心率的测定。","authors":"Jean-Yves Tabet, Philippe Meurin, Ahmed Ben Driss, Gabriel Thabut, Helene Weber, Nathalie Renaud, Ngaralbaye Odjinkem, Alain Cohen Solal","doi":"10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In patients with coronary artery disease, the target intensity-level of exercise training is usually based on a training heart rate that aims to be close to the upper level of metabolic aerobic exercise.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We intended to evaluate whether a training heart rate calculated with the Karvonen formula after a conventional exercise test is comparable with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in patients after myocardial infarction treated with beta-blockers and if not to propose a new formula.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In this multicenter prospective study, 115 consecutive beta-blocked patients recovering from myocardial infarction performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to determine the anaerobic threshold. The training heart rate determined by the Karvonen formula was compared with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in a derivation sample (n=58) and a validation sample (n=57) of patients. The Karvonen training heart rate was significantly lower than the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (91+/-5 versus 102+/-17 bpm, P<0.0001) in the first sample of patients and this difference was clinically relevant in 40% of patients. Thus, a 'modified Karvonen training heart rate', equal to 0.8xx(maximum heart rate-resting heart rate)+resting heart rate, was calculated by linear regression in the derivation sample and prospectively assessed in the validation sample. The modified Karvonen training heart rate was closer to the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold than the Karvonen training heart rate, and the difference between the modified Karvonen training heart rate and the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold was clinically relevant in only 5% of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Karvonen formula underestimates the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in beta-blocked patients, which may lead to undertraining of patients with coronary artery disease; we propose another formula more adapted to these patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":50492,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"538-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d","citationCount":"67","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of exercise training heart rate in patients on beta-blockers after myocardial infarction.\",\"authors\":\"Jean-Yves Tabet, Philippe Meurin, Ahmed Ben Driss, Gabriel Thabut, Helene Weber, Nathalie Renaud, Ngaralbaye Odjinkem, Alain Cohen Solal\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In patients with coronary artery disease, the target intensity-level of exercise training is usually based on a training heart rate that aims to be close to the upper level of metabolic aerobic exercise.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We intended to evaluate whether a training heart rate calculated with the Karvonen formula after a conventional exercise test is comparable with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in patients after myocardial infarction treated with beta-blockers and if not to propose a new formula.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>In this multicenter prospective study, 115 consecutive beta-blocked patients recovering from myocardial infarction performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to determine the anaerobic threshold. The training heart rate determined by the Karvonen formula was compared with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in a derivation sample (n=58) and a validation sample (n=57) of patients. The Karvonen training heart rate was significantly lower than the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (91+/-5 versus 102+/-17 bpm, P<0.0001) in the first sample of patients and this difference was clinically relevant in 40% of patients. Thus, a 'modified Karvonen training heart rate', equal to 0.8xx(maximum heart rate-resting heart rate)+resting heart rate, was calculated by linear regression in the derivation sample and prospectively assessed in the validation sample. The modified Karvonen training heart rate was closer to the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold than the Karvonen training heart rate, and the difference between the modified Karvonen training heart rate and the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold was clinically relevant in only 5% of patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Karvonen formula underestimates the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in beta-blocked patients, which may lead to undertraining of patients with coronary artery disease; we propose another formula more adapted to these patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"538-43\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d\",\"citationCount\":\"67\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hjr.0000209813.05573.4d","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67
摘要
背景:在冠状动脉疾病患者中,运动训练的目标强度水平通常以训练心率为基础,目标是接近代谢有氧运动的最高水平。目的:我们打算评估在常规运动试验后用Karvonen公式计算的训练心率是否与心肌梗死后接受β受体阻滞剂治疗的患者在无氧阈下的心率相当,如果不能提出一个新的公式。方法和结果:在这项多中心前瞻性研究中,115例连续的心肌梗死患者进行了心肺运动试验,以确定无氧阈值。将Karvonen公式确定的训练心率与衍生样本(n=58)和验证样本(n=57)患者的无氧阈心率进行比较。Karvonen训练心率明显低于无氧阈值心率(91+/-5 vs 102+/-17)。结论:Karvonen公式低估了β -阻滞患者无氧阈值心率,可能导致冠心病患者训练不足;我们提出了另一种更适合这些患者的配方。
Determination of exercise training heart rate in patients on beta-blockers after myocardial infarction.
Background: In patients with coronary artery disease, the target intensity-level of exercise training is usually based on a training heart rate that aims to be close to the upper level of metabolic aerobic exercise.
Aim: We intended to evaluate whether a training heart rate calculated with the Karvonen formula after a conventional exercise test is comparable with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in patients after myocardial infarction treated with beta-blockers and if not to propose a new formula.
Methods and results: In this multicenter prospective study, 115 consecutive beta-blocked patients recovering from myocardial infarction performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test to determine the anaerobic threshold. The training heart rate determined by the Karvonen formula was compared with the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in a derivation sample (n=58) and a validation sample (n=57) of patients. The Karvonen training heart rate was significantly lower than the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold (91+/-5 versus 102+/-17 bpm, P<0.0001) in the first sample of patients and this difference was clinically relevant in 40% of patients. Thus, a 'modified Karvonen training heart rate', equal to 0.8xx(maximum heart rate-resting heart rate)+resting heart rate, was calculated by linear regression in the derivation sample and prospectively assessed in the validation sample. The modified Karvonen training heart rate was closer to the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold than the Karvonen training heart rate, and the difference between the modified Karvonen training heart rate and the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold was clinically relevant in only 5% of patients.
Conclusion: The Karvonen formula underestimates the heart rate at the anaerobic threshold in beta-blocked patients, which may lead to undertraining of patients with coronary artery disease; we propose another formula more adapted to these patients.