ENHANCING QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGH A SUPERVISED CARDIAC REHABILITATION PROGRAM ALONG WITH A CONVENTIONAL CONDITIONING EXERCISE PROGRAM AT HOME IN CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE PATIENTS

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Debilitating day-to-day practices, including a sedentary lifestyle, increased unhealthy food consumption habits, no exercise, smoking, remarkably low HDL, and high cholesterol levels, lead to increased obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases (CVD), affecting the quality of life. Supervised, steady, and long-term aerobic exercise training benefits cardiorespiratory fitness, psychological status, and quality of life. Therefore, the study’s objective was to determine the effect of cardiac rehabilitation program (CRP) on heart rate (HR), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP), and quality of life (QOL) in CVD patients. Materials and Methods: The study followed a two-arm parallel group randomized comparative design. Thirty participants (n=15/group) with CVD (aged between 45-76 years) were randomly allocated to two groups (CRP vs. Control). CRP Group received the CRP and a conventional conditioning exercise program (CEP) at home and the Control Group received the conventional CEP only at home. The outcomes, HR, SBP, DBP, and QOL, were assessed using a sphygmomanometer and short-form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire’s physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scale, respectively. The t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to analyze between and within-group comparisons for all the outcomes scores, keeping the significance level α at 95% (p0.05) for all the statistical analyses. Results: The mean scores comparison of the outcomes, HR, PCS, and MCS, were found significant (95% CI, p0.05) within CRP and Control groups; however, SBP and DBP mean scores were found insignificant (95% CI, p>0.05) within both groups, except DBP mean score which was found significant (p0.05) within CRP Group. Comparing the outcomes mean scores between the groups at four-week post-intervention, except PCS and MCS (95% CI, p0.05), HR, SBP, and DBP were found to be insignificant (p>0.05). Conclusions: The CRP and conventional CEP at home together and conventional CEP at home alone were equally effective in decreasing HR and improving QOL in CVD patients. However, the CRP and conventional CEP at home together showed more effectiveness than the conventional CEP at home in improving the QOL in CVD patients.