{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03763440860215054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02867383512544803, 'mean_word_length': 4.473039215686274, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Influence of a hybrid form of cardiac rehabilitation on exercise tolerance in coronary artery disease patients with and without diabetes.

BACKGROUND
The effectiveness of stationary and ambulatory cardiac rehabilitation of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes has been proven by some authors, but data concerning the effects of hybrid forms of cardiac rehabilitation (HCR) in this population are lacking. A home-based telerehabilitation is a promising form of secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in this group of patients.


AIM
The objective of the study was to compare the effects of HCR in CAD patients with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). The secondary endpoint was the assessment of CAD risk factors like low exercise capacity and obesity, in both groups of patients.


METHODS
This was a retrospective study, which comprised 125 patients with CAD aged 57.31 ± 5.61 years referred for HCR. They were assigned to Group D (with diabetes; n = 37) or Group C (without diabetes; n = 88). HCR was carried out as a comprehensive procedure that included all core components of cardiac rehabilitation according to guidelines. Before and after HCR all patients underwent a symptom-limited exercise test performed according to the Bruce protocol on a treadmill.


RESULTS
Before HCR the maximal workload was higher in Group C than in Group D (8.13 ± 2.82 METs vs. 6.77 ± 1.88 METs; p = 0.023), but after HCR the difference was not significant. In both groups an increase in the maximal workload after HCR was observed (Group D: before HCR 6.81 ± 1.91 METs, after HCR 8.30 ± 2.04 METs; p < 0.001; Group C: before HCR 8.31 ± 2.71 METs, after HCR 9.13 ± 2.87 METs; p = 0.001). Resting heart rate, double product, and heart rate recovery 1 (HRR1) declined in both groups. No significant differences in changes in exercise test parameters between both groups' parameters were found.


CONCLUSIONS
HCR was effective in patients with DM. The adherence was high. Patients with DM had higher rates of obesity and significantly lower exercise tolerance than patients without DM. Patients from both groups gained similar benefit from HCR in terms of physical capacity, resting heart rate, and heart rate recovery.