Effectiveness and Safety of Four Aerobic Exercise Intensity Prescription Techniques in Rehabilitation Training for Patients with Coronary Heart Disease

Table 6

Comparison of safety indicators in intensity techniques.

	a. No. and Frequencies with ECG positive reaction			b. No. and Frequencies with Complex VA			c.	f.
	No. of patients	(%) of all high-risk patients (n = 232)	(%) in all ECG positive reaction patients	No. of patients	(%) of all high-risk patients (n = 232)	(%) in all Complex VA patients (n = 27)	No. of patients	No. of patients
HRR-m A	7	3.0	25	18	7.8	66.7	1	2
HRR-m B	1	0.4	3.6	9	3.9	33.3	0	1
MHR-m	0	0	0	5	2.2	18.5	1	1
THR-m	4	1.7	14.3	13	5.6	48.1	1	1
AT-m	2	0.9	7.1	14	6.0	51.9	1	2
P△		0.00	0.00		0.00	0.00

^△, value of the consistency comparison among the five methods in the distribution of the safety indicators (using the nonparametric test of Related Samples—Cochran’s Q test, ) in the high-risk group or all the people with this safety indicators. c, no. of patients with nonsustained ventricular tachycardia; f, no. of patients with bundle branch block; HRR-m A, heart-rate-reserve method A; HRR-m B, heart-rate-reserve method B; MHR-m, max-heart-rate method; THR-m, target-heart-rate method; AT-m, anaerobic threshold method. Among the above-mentioned patients with ECG abnormalities, most of them with positive reaction have a medical history of hypertension, normal LVEF, normal anaerobic threshold, decreased functional reserve, and most of them use β-blocker medications, but there was no significant difference compared with negative patients ().