Assessing the compatibility of physical training prescription formulas for patients with pacemaker

• Grant number: 15/00849-1
• Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Scientific Initiation
• Start date: May 01, 2015
• End date: December 31, 2015
• Field of knowledge: Health Sciences - Physical Education
• Principal Investigator: Ivani Credidio Trombetta
• Grantee: Daniel D'Orio Nishioka
• Host Institution: Instituto do Coração Professor Euryclides de Jesus Zerbini (INCOR). Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da USP (HCFMUSP). Secretaria da Saúde (São Paulo - Estado). São Paulo , SP, Brazil

Abstract

Introduction: Heart Rate (HR) is one of the more physiological variables used for exercise prescription and easily measured. There are several formulas to predict the Maximum Heart Rate (HR max). Objective: To examine the compatibility of the formulas "reserve FC - FCres (Karvonen)" and "% HRmax" predicted for age with the anaerobic threshold (AT) and respiratory compensation point (RCP) obtained from cardiopulmonary test (TCP) in pacemaker (PM) and compare the training prescription FC at different ages and in patients with MP with BMI> 30. Methods: We included 38 patients with PM mean age 57,7 years, 26 (68%) female. A maximum TCP was performed on a treadmill. To study the reproducibility entres to HR measurements we used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Result: the reproducibility of FC was excellent (r = 0.767) and significant (p <0.001) between LA and FCres60% test, and excellent (r = 0.773) and significant (p <0.001) between CRP and FCres80% test. In subgroup analysis by age and BMI> 30: a) none of the analyzed formulas had any degree of correlation to estimate the FC in LA and FC in PCR for age group 40-50 years; b) the reproducibility of FC was moderate (r = 0.574) and significant (p = 0.043) between LA and FCres40% test and FCres40% predicted and was excellent (r = 0.880) and significant (p <0.001) between CRP and FCres80% test for the age group of 51-60 years; c) was excellent (r = 0.827) and significant (p <0.001) for the age group of 61-70 years and excellent (0.772) and significant (p = 0.001) for BMI> 30, between LA and FCres60% test and was moderate (r = 0.744) and significant (p = 0.002) for the age group of 61-70 years and moderate (r = 0.733) and significant (p = 0.002) for BMI> 30, both between CRP and FCres80% test. Conclusion: In patients with PM, for the general population of the study, prescribing training is possible using the formula of FCres 60% and 80% obtained in ET, when TCP is not available; for the age group of 61-70 years and BMI> 30, the percentage correlation of FCres are the same as those found for the general population of the study; and in the lower age groups (40-50 years and 51-60 years) were not observed the same results, possibly due to the small sample size in each subgroup (AU)