0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Determinants of Physical Functioning in Coronary Patients:  Response to Cardiac Rehabilitation FREE

Philip A. Ades, MD; Anne Maloney, MD; Patrick Savage, MS; Robert L. Carhart Jr, MD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington. Dr Carhart is now affiliated with the Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, State University of New York Health Science Center, Syracuse.


Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(19):2357-2360. doi:10.1001/archinte.159.19.2357.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  Coronary heart disease is a major cause of disability. There has been little study of the effect of cardiac rehabilitation on measures of self-reported physical functioning.

Methods  Physical functioning was measured using the Medical Outcomes Study–Short-Form Questionnaire. Determinants of physical function were analyzed in 303 patients with coronary heart disease. Response of physical function to a 3-month exercise rehabilitation program was then determined.

Results  At baseline, women had lower physical function scores than men, despite similar age and diagnostic distribution. Older patients had lower physical function than younger patients. Aerobic exercise capacity, leg and arm strength, and comorbidity and depression scores were all significant predictors of baseline physical function (r range, 0.46 to −0.22). Physical function score increased significantly after exercise conditioning, with a mean (±SD) overall score increase from 66 ± 23 to 80 ± 20 on a scale of 0 to 100. The best baseline determinant of a favorable physical function improvement after rehabilitation was a low baseline physical function score. The best training-related correlate of improved physical function score was a decrease in mental depression score.

Conclusions  Self-reported physical function in coronary patients is related to age, sex, fitness, and mood state. Physical functioning improves after cardiac rehabilitation in all age, sex, and diagnostic groups, but particularly in patients with low baseline values. These data support the concept that cardiac rehabilitation effectively prevents and treats cardiac disability.

Figures in this Article

THE EFFECTS of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on measurable health outcomes in coronary patients, including morbidity and mortality, exercise capacity, symptoms, and coronary risk factors, have been studied intensively.14 However, despite the fact that coronary heart disease is a major cause of premature disability and of disability in the elderly,5,6 there has been little study of the effect of cardiac rehabilitation on measures of physical functioning.

In our study, self-reported physical function status, a major component of quality of life, was measured using the physical function section from the Medical Outcomes Study–Short-Form Questionnaire.7 This questionnaire describes whether patients are physically limited during a range of physical activities. These range from very strenuous (ie, running or lifting), to moderate (ie, carrying groceries or climbing a single flight of stairs) and low level (ie, bathing or dressing).

We analyzed baseline physical functioning in a population of patients with coronary heart disease entering a cardiac rehabilitation program and determined the subsequent response of physical function score to exercise rehabilitation. From a practical point of view, these data may help reorient cardiac rehabilitation training protocols such that improvements in physical functioning are maximized. They may also prove useful for patients and cardiac rehabilitation professionals to predict which patients are most likely to improve physical functioning with rehabilitation.

PATIENT POPULATION

The study population at baseline consisted of 303 patients with coronary heart disease referred to the cardiac rehabilitation program at the University of Vermont Fletcher-Allen Health Care, Burlington, from January 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998. All patients had recently been hospitalized with a coronary event a mean (± SD) of 7 ± 4 weeks before entry into the study. All patients were living independently in the community. Index diagnosis was coronary bypass grafting in 121 (39.9%), myocardial infarction in 84 (27.7%), percutaneous angioplasty (without infarction) in 64 (21.1%), unstable angina in 25 (8.2%), and congestive heart failure in 9 (3.0%). Mean (± SD) age of the study population was 60.6 ± 11.3 years (range, 20-87 years). Male patients constituted 74.9% (n = 227) of the study.

DATA COLLECTION

Before beginning the exercise rehabilitation program, all patients had a session of baseline data collection that included the following: (1) the Physical Function assessment from the Medical Outcomes Study–Short-Form Questionnaire scaled 0 to 100, where 100 signifies excellent physical function7; (2) the Geriatric Depression Questionnaire8 with measurement of a depression score scaled 0 to 15, where the higher number signifies more depressive symptoms; (3) a symptom-limited treadmill exercise test performed according to a modified Balke protocol, with determination of maximal work capacity (in metabolic equivalents of multiples of resting oxygen uptake [METS]) and collection of expired gas for measurement of peak aerobic capacity (in peak oxygen consumption [V̇O2]), performed with patients taking their usual medications; (4) strength measures by determination of a single-repetition maximal lift for bench press (upper body) and leg extension (lower body); and (5) a comorbidity score by assessment for the presence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, and arthritis. If a comorbid condition was present, it was quantified by severity as follows: 1 indicated present but not exercise limiting; 2, present and had an impact on exercise response; and 3, exercise limiting. A total morbidity score ranging from 0 to 15 was determined for each patient.

EXERCISE TRAINING PROTOCOL

The exercise training protocol consisted of three 1-h/wk sessions of combined aerobic and resistance exercise. In general, patients performed 30 to 45 minutes per session of treadmill walking, rowing, and cycling, with exercise heart rates maintained at 70% to 85% of maximal heart rate as determined from results of their baseline exercise test. Patients also participated in a resistance training program on a multisystem Universal Gym apparatus (Universal Inc, Iowa City, Iowa) performing 1 to 2 eight-repetition sets at an intensity of 40% to 50% of a single-repetition maximal lift for bench press, shoulder press, latissimus pulldown, leg extension, and hamstring curl. Adjustments were made for patients with comorbidities such as arthritis. Patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery began upper body resistance training no sooner than 3 months from the date of surgery. All study evaluations were repeated in patients who completed the full 3 months of exercise training.

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Data were analyzed using the t test, univariate linear regression, and stepwise multivariate regression analysis. Data are presented as mean ± SD.

The study group ranged from 20 to 87 years of age, with mean ages for men and women of 60.0 ± 11.1 and 62.5 ± 12.0 years, respectively (P = .09) (Table 1). At baseline exercise testing, 21 (6.9%) were characterized by the presence of exertional angina, and 33 (10.9%) were noted to have more than 1-mm ST segment depression on echocardiography.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics by Sex*
PREDICTORS OF BASELINE PHYSICAL FUNCTION SCORE

At baseline, women had lower physical function scores than men (57.4 ± 24.9 vs 68.6 ± 21.4; P = .008), despite no significant difference in age or diagnostic distribution between sexes (Figure 1). Index diagnosis predicted baseline higher physical function score with patients who had coronary angioplasty than with patients who had suffered a myocardial infarction (P<.05), with no other significant differences between diagnostic groups (Table 2). Time since coronary event did not predict physical function score. Patient age was related to baseline physical function score, with older patients having lower function (r = −0.22; P<.001) (Table 3 and Figure 1). Baseline maximal exercise capacity and peak O2 were the best univariate predictors of baseline physical function score (r = 0.46 and 0.40; respectively; P<.001 for both) (Table 3). Other significant predictors of baseline physical function score were strength measures of leg press (r = 0.32) and bench press (r = 0.25), comorbidity score (r = −0.23), and depression score (r = −0.22) (all Ps<.001). Body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters) did not predict baseline physical function. The presence of angina or at least 1 mm ST segment depression at the baseline stress test were not predictive of baseline physical function score. By multivariate analysis, baseline maximal exercise capacity and comorbidity score were the best independent determinants of baseline physical function score (cumulative r2 = 0.26).

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Physical function by age and sex. Asterisk indicates P<.01 compared with women; dagger, P<.01 compared with older patients.

Graphic Jump Location
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline Physical Function Score by Cardiac Diagnosis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Determinants of Baseline Physical Function Score*
RESPONSE TO EXERCISE CONDITIONING

A total of 218 patients completed the 3-month exercise conditioning protocol. A subset of 40 patients (13.2%) completed an abbreviated conditioning program of 18 sessions and were not included in the present analysis, whereas 45 patients (14.8%) discontinued participation before completion of their planned participation.

Physical function score increased substantially in the 218 patients who completed the prescribed 3-month cardiac rehabilitation protocol, from 65.6 ± 22.8 to 80.2 ± 20.4 (P<.001) (Table 4). Associated with the increase in physical function score were associated increases in peak V̇O2 (+16%), peak exercise capacity (+50%), leg strength (+28%), and upper body strength (+17%) and a decrease in depression score (Table 4). Among the patients who completed cardiac rehabilitation, mean attendance rate (76% ± 8%) did not predict change in physical function score.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Response to Exercise Conditioning*
BASELINE PREDICTORS OF CHANGE IN PHYSICAL FUNCTION SCORE WITH CONDITIONING

We then studied the power of baseline measures to predict change in physical function score in response to cardiac rehabilitation (n = 218). The only baseline measure that predicted change in physical function score after rehabilitation was the baseline physical function score (r = −0.51; P<.001). That is, patients with the lowest baseline physical function score were the most likely to show an improvement in this measure after rehabilitation.

TRAINING-RELATED PREDICTORS OF CHANGE IN PHYSICAL FUNCTION SCORE

Finally, we analyzed whether exercise-induced changes in variables such as fitness measures, strength measures, and depression score correlated with change in physical function after rehabilitation. Changes in several variables predicted a change in the physical function score after exercise rehabilitation (Table 5). The best predictor of improvement was change in depression score (r = 0.36; P<.001), followed by changes in leg strength (r = 0.29; P = .006), arm strength (r = 0.28; P = .008), peak V̇O2 (r = 0.22; P = .02), and maximal exercise capacity (r = 0.17; P = .01). By multivariate analysis, the only independent predictors of improvements in physical function score were change in depression score (r2 = 0.08; P = .003) and change in maximal exercise capacity (cumulative r2 = 0.15; P = .007).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Training Related Correlates of Improved Physical Function Score

Despite the fact that coronary heart disease is a major cause of premature and all-age disability in the United States, the determinants of physical function, the inverse of disability, in this population has received little study. Furthermore, although the effect of cardiac rehabilitation exercise training on treadmill-derived measures of exercise capacity has been studied extensively,3 the relationship between treadmill-derived measures of exercise capacity and physical function in the home setting is actually unclear. In a study by Neill et al9 in middle-aged male coronary patients, there was a surprisingly poor correlation between exercise capacity and questionnaire-derived measures of physical function in the home environment. In many cases, patients consciously limited their actual performance of physical activities owing to fear that an activity was unsafe or to physician or family advice, rather than to an experience of symptoms during the activity.

In our study, we find that baseline characteristics of older age, female sex, low exercise capacity, low strength, presence of medical comorbidities, and higher depression score all predict poor physical function. After cardiac rehabilitation exercise training, patients in all age, sex, and diagnostic categories improved their perceived ability to perform physical activities in the home environment. From a clinical point of view, patients with the lowest baseline physical function scores were the patients who improved to the greatest degree after conditioning. In that the best predictor of cardiac rehabilitation participation is the strength of the referring physician's recommendation, a strong recommendation for cardiac rehabilitation participation is most indicated in patients with the lowest physical function scores, ie, the most disabled.10

The best training-induced correlates of improvement in physical function score were change in depression score, followed by change in exercise capacity. These results highlight the importance of mood state on functioning and well-being in the population tested. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study in more than 11 000 outpatients confirm that patients with depressive symptoms in the absence of depressive disorder had worse physical and social functioning and worse perceived health than patients with hypertension, diabetes, and arthritis.11 Although it is not clear in our study whether depression score improved as a function of the group exercise training program or as a function of the time elapsed since the index coronary event, there is evidence from the literature that participation in cardiac rehabilitation is associated with improvements in measures of depression compared with randomized controls.12,13

Several fitness-related factors were also related to baseline physical function status and to improved function after rehabilitation. These include measures of aerobic fitness and of strength. The recent addition of strength training to cardiac rehabilitation protocols is supported by the results of our study, particularly for patients with the lowest strength measures, ie, women and the elderly.14,15 However, our results also suggest a redirection in the design of rehabilitation programs if the goal is to diminish rates of disability in coronary patients. With a goal of maximizing physical function, attention must be focused not only on physical work capacity, but on mood, and most specifically, depressive symptoms. In addition to group exercise, patients who at baseline have a combination of low physical functioning and a high depression score should be considered for individual or group counseling. It remains to be determined if improvements in depressive symptoms and/or mood alone would lead to an improved physical performance status.

Our study has several limitations. Because patients underwent study on entry into a cardiac rehabilitation program, the study group primarily consisted of patients recently hospitalized for an acute coronary event such as coronary bypass surgery or acute myocardial infarction, with a lesser inclusion of patients with chronic angina and chronic heart failure. Cardiac rehabilitation populations are also characterized by fewer older patients, female patients, and patients in lower socioeconomic subgroups.10 The study was limited also by a lack of a nonexercising control group; thus, some gains in physical work capacity and in mood state may have occurred just with the passage of time since the acute coronary event. Nonetheless, these data focus attention on the importance of measuring the benefits of rehabilitation in terms reported by the patient, such as physical functioning, rather than by measures more familiar to physicians such as exercise testing variables or other diagnostic tests. In summary, cardiac rehabilitation effectively improves physical function in patients with coronary heart disease, thereby preventing and treating coronary disability.

Accepted for publication March 16, 1999.

Supported in part by grant RR-109 from the General Clinical Research Center, University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington.

Corresponding author: Philip A. Ades, MD, Cardiac Rehabilitation and Preventive Cardiology, Fletcher-Allen Health Care, McClure 1, Division of Cardiology, Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, Burlington,VT 05401 (e-mail pades@zoo.uvm.edu).

O'Connor  GTBuring  JEYusuf  S  et al.  An overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1989;80234- 244
Link to Article
Oldridge  NBGuyatt  GHFischer  MERimm  AA Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1988;260945- 950
Link to Article
Wenger  NKFroehlicher  ESSmith  LK  et al.  Cardiac Rehabilitation: Clinical Practice Guidelines. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute October1995; Agency for Health Care Policy and Research publication96- 0672
Lavie  CJMilani  RVLittman  AB Benefits of cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training in secondary coronary prevention in the elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22678- 683
Link to Article
LaPlante  MP Data on Disability From the National Health Interview Survey, 1983-1985.  Bethesda, Md National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research1989;
Pinsky  JLJette  AMBranch  LGKannel  WBFeinleib  M The Framingham Disability Study. Am J Public Health. 1990;801363- 1368
Link to Article
Stewart  ALHays  RDWare  JE The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26724- 735
Link to Article
Yesavage  JABrink  TLRose  TL Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983;1737- 49
Link to Article
Neill  WABranch  LGDeJong  G  et al.  Cardiac disability: the impact of coronary disease on patients' daily activities. Arch Intern Med. 1981;1451642- 1647
Link to Article
Ades  PAWaldmann  MLMcCann  WWeaver  SO Predictors of cardiac rehabilitation participation in older coronary patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;1521033- 1035
Link to Article
Wells  KStewart  AHays  RD  et al.  The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989;262914- 919
Link to Article
Taylor  CBHouston-Miller  NAhn  DKHaskell  WDeBusk  RF The effects of exercise training programs on psychosocial improvement in uncomplicated postmycardial infarction patients. J Psychosom Res. 1986;30581- 587
Link to Article
Newton  MMutrie  NMcArthur  JD The effects of exercise in a coronary rehabilitation programme. Scott Med J. 1991;6038- 41
Stewart  KMcFarland  LWeinhofer  J  et al.  Safety and efficacy of weight training soon after acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1998;1837- 44
Link to Article
Fragnoli-Munn  KSavage  PAdes  P Combined resistive-aerobic training in older coronary patients early after myocardial infarction. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1998;18416- 420
Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Physical function by age and sex. Asterisk indicates P<.01 compared with women; dagger, P<.01 compared with older patients.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Baseline Characteristics by Sex*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Baseline Physical Function Score by Cardiac Diagnosis
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Determinants of Baseline Physical Function Score*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Response to Exercise Conditioning*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 5. Training Related Correlates of Improved Physical Function Score

References

O'Connor  GTBuring  JEYusuf  S  et al.  An overview of randomized trials of rehabilitation with exercise after myocardial infarction. Circulation. 1989;80234- 244
Link to Article
Oldridge  NBGuyatt  GHFischer  MERimm  AA Cardiac rehabilitation after myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1988;260945- 950
Link to Article
Wenger  NKFroehlicher  ESSmith  LK  et al.  Cardiac Rehabilitation: Clinical Practice Guidelines. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute October1995; Agency for Health Care Policy and Research publication96- 0672
Lavie  CJMilani  RVLittman  AB Benefits of cardiac rehabilitation and exercise training in secondary coronary prevention in the elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1993;22678- 683
Link to Article
LaPlante  MP Data on Disability From the National Health Interview Survey, 1983-1985.  Bethesda, Md National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research1989;
Pinsky  JLJette  AMBranch  LGKannel  WBFeinleib  M The Framingham Disability Study. Am J Public Health. 1990;801363- 1368
Link to Article
Stewart  ALHays  RDWare  JE The MOS Short-form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26724- 735
Link to Article
Yesavage  JABrink  TLRose  TL Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res. 1983;1737- 49
Link to Article
Neill  WABranch  LGDeJong  G  et al.  Cardiac disability: the impact of coronary disease on patients' daily activities. Arch Intern Med. 1981;1451642- 1647
Link to Article
Ades  PAWaldmann  MLMcCann  WWeaver  SO Predictors of cardiac rehabilitation participation in older coronary patients. Arch Intern Med. 1992;1521033- 1035
Link to Article
Wells  KStewart  AHays  RD  et al.  The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA. 1989;262914- 919
Link to Article
Taylor  CBHouston-Miller  NAhn  DKHaskell  WDeBusk  RF The effects of exercise training programs on psychosocial improvement in uncomplicated postmycardial infarction patients. J Psychosom Res. 1986;30581- 587
Link to Article
Newton  MMutrie  NMcArthur  JD The effects of exercise in a coronary rehabilitation programme. Scott Med J. 1991;6038- 41
Stewart  KMcFarland  LWeinhofer  J  et al.  Safety and efficacy of weight training soon after acute myocardial infarction. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1998;1837- 44
Link to Article
Fragnoli-Munn  KSavage  PAdes  P Combined resistive-aerobic training in older coronary patients early after myocardial infarction. J Cardiopulm Rehabil. 1998;18416- 420
Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 55

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles