ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Safety and efficacy of a novel quantitative phase I exercise in patients after cardiopulmonary bypass: a single-blind, prospective, non-randomized study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the positive effect of early post-cardiac surgery exercises, the concern of safety issues is high, indicating the need for standardized and quantitative mobility indicators to enhance early mobilization monitoring in the intensive care unit while ensuring patient safety. This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of quantitative phase I exercise versus usual care in patients who have undergone cardiac surgery. Methods: In this non-randomized, single-blind trial, patients following on-pump cardiac surgery were allocated to either quantitative exercise (intervention group, n=114) or usual care (control group, n=114) based on their willingness. Continuous cycling ergometer was used for intervention, and the peak power was recorded for setting next exercise intensity. Noninvasive cardiac output monitoring during exercise was used for safety management. Patients received one time per day, seven sessions in total. Results: Two-way repeated-measure analysis of variance demonstrated significant group and test time difference for forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) (P=0.01), maximum expiratory pressure (MEP) (P=0.02), peak expiratory flow (PEF) rate (P=0.045), and 6-minute walking distance (6MWD) (P=0.001); more improvement of 6MWD in intervention group (P<0.001). Intervention group showed significant post-test improvements except FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC). Post-test differences between groups were observed in FEV1 (P=0.02), FVC (P=0.02), MEP (P=0.02), 6MWD (P<0.001), and △6MWD (P<0.001). Analysis of covariance with smoking as covariate showed consistent results. Postoperative stay in intensive-care unit in the intervention group [mean ± standard deviation (SD), 3.0±1.3] was shorter than that in the control group (mean ± SD, 3.5±2.2) (P=0.03). Conclusions: Quantitative phase I exercise applied to patients following cardiopulmonary bypass is safe and recovers respiratory and physical capacity more quickly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.