Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
This study aimed to investigate the rate of sedentary behaviour and differences in physical outcomes and activities of daily living (ADL) based on sedentary behaviour time of hospitalized older cardiovascular disease patients undergoing phase I cardiac rehabilitation. Older cardiovascular disease patients were enrolled from October 2020 to September 2023 and were divided into the high sedentary behaviour group (≥ 480 min/day) and low sedentary behaviour group (< 480 min/day). Patients' clinical characteristics, usual gait speed, and Five Times Sit to Stand Test time were compared as indices of physical outcomes. Motor, cognitive, and total Functional Independence Measure (FIM) scores were used as indices of ADL and compared between groups using analysis of covariance. Final analysis included 402 patients (mean age: 76.7 years, female: 35.3%). The high sedentary behaviour group included 48.5% of the study patients. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, gait speed (0.80 ± 0.27 vs. 0.96 ± 0.23 m/s, p < 0.001) was lower and FTSST time (11.31 ± 4.19 vs. 9.39 ± 3.11 s, p < 0.001) was higher in the high sedentary behaviour group versus low sedentary behaviour group. Motor (85.82 ± 8.82 vs. 88.09 ± 5.04 points, p < 0.001), cognitive (33.32 ± 2.93 vs. 34.04 ± 2.24 points, p < 0.001), and total FIM scores (119.13 ± 10.66 vs. 122.02 ± 6.30 points, p < 0.001) were significantly lower in the high sedentary behaviour group versus low sedentary behaviour group after adjustment. In older cardiovascular disease patients in phase I cardiac rehabilitation, sedentary behaviour time might influence physical outcomes and ADL at discharge. It is thus important to consider the amount of sedentary behaviour time spent by these patients during daily life while hospitalized.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11189532 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-65001-8 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!