1,721,162 research outputs found
Letter to the Editor: ‘Updated clinical evidence and place in therapy of bempedoic acid (BA) for hypercholesterolemia: aNMCO position paper’
No full textLoneliness, social isolation and risk of cardiovascular disease in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing
No full textEditorial to ‘Comparison of Phase 2 Cardiac Rehabilitation Outcomes between patients after Transcatheter versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement’
No full textL'intervento psicologico in Riabilitazione Cardiologica: un modello organizzativo con prospettiva di valutazione dell'efficacia
No full text
Cardiologia riabilitativa e prevenzione secondaria durante la pandemia COVID-19: stato dell'arte e prospettive
No full textExercise training in patients with chronic heart failure: A new challenge for Cardiac Rehabilitation Community.
No full textExercise training (ET) is strongly recommended in patients with
chronic stable heart failure (HF). Moderate-intensity aerobic continuous
ET is the best-established training modality in HF patients. In the
last decade, however, high-intensity interval exercise training (HIIT)
has aroused considerable interest in cardiac rehabilitation community.
In HF patients, HIIT exerts larger improvements in exercise capacity
compared to moderate-continuous ET. Since better functional capacity
translates into symptoms relief and improvement in quality of life in
patients with HF, this training modality is collecting growing interest
and consensus, not revealing major safety issues. HIIT should not replace
other training modalities in HF but should rather complement
them. Inspiratory muscle training, another promising training modality
in patients with HF, exerts beneficial effect on inspiratory muscle
strength and inspiratory endurance, on exercise capacity and quality of
life. In conclusion, taking into consideration the complecity of HF syndrome,
combining and tailoring different ET modalities according to
each patient’s baseline clinical characteristics (i.e., exercise capacity,
comorbidity, frailty status, personal needs, preferences and goals)
seem the wiliest approach for exercise prescription. The present review
aims at discussing the rececent evidences on the effects of exercise
training in patients with chronic HF (with both reduced and preserved
left ventricular function)
Prevention of cardioembolic events after intracranial hemorrhage.
No full textIn high thromboembolic risk patients who experienced hemorrhagic stroke, the prevention of cardioembolic events and recurrence of intracranial bleeding should be guaranteed. The consultant cardiologist should carefully identify the most appropriate therapeutic approach for these patients. Among patients with previous hemorrhagic stroke, only few restart oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) after cerebral bleeding; however, as reported by some registries, it is likely that resuming OAT exerts a favorable effect on the combined outcome of ischemic stroke/systemic embolism/all-cause death. In these patients, several parameters should be evaluated, such as the type of intracranial bleeding, the presence of a previous thromboembolic event, the global thromboembolic risk, as well as the history of a previous OAT. This review deals with a particularly interesting matter, requiring a number of decision-making turning points, i.e. whether it is appropriate or not to start or resume OAT, what drug class and timing choice in such a case, and the potential valuable alternatives to OAT
Response to Commentary "efficacy of inspiratory muscle training in chronic heart failure patients"
No full textIn their letter Plentz and colleagues attempt to highlight discrepancies between their review work and that of Smart et al. Plentz and colleagues suggest that the search by Smart et al. was too narrow. We challenge Plentz and colleagues to find omitted studies that were published in the stipulated time frame as, in addition to the stipulated search, extensive hand searching was conducted. The discrepancy between the previous works and the work of Smart et al. may be explained by the fact that we only recorded papers where we were required to read more than the title (e.g. abstracts or full manuscripts) in order to come to a decision to exclude a study. Second, Plentz and colleagues suggest our review included too many studies, which perhaps contradicts their comment above? We do however acknowledge that journal word limits permitting the inclusion of a sensitivity analysis (e.g. removal of studies of Winkelmann and Laoutaris) may have been helpful in teasing out any effects of heterogenic studies
- …
