摘要目的:探讨心脏运动康复用于射血分数保留的心力衰竭的效果。方法:选取永康医院2019年5-12月收治的经临床诊断为射血分数保留的心力衰竭患者200例为研究对象，按照随机数字表法分组为对照组与观察组各100例，对照组为常规治疗；观察组在对照组治疗基础上采用心脏运动康复治疗。比较两组患者治疗前后6 min步行试验距离，检测两组患者治疗前后血浆脑利钠肽（BNP）浓度，采用心脏超声检测两组患者治疗前后左室射血分数（LVEF）、左室短轴缩短率（FS）、左房内径（LAD）、左室舒张末期内径（LVEDD）变化；记录两组患者治疗期间跌倒等不良事件发生率，采用明尼苏达心衰量表评价两组患者治疗前后生活质量；随访3个月，统计两组患者再住院情况。结果:观察组患者治疗后6 min步行试验距离为（421.63±86.75）m，明显长于对照组的（328.44±74.93）m（ t=8.130， P<0.001），两组较治疗前均明显延长（ t对照组=6.584， P<0.001； t观察组=15.337， P<0.001）；观察组治疗后BNP浓度为（227.68±31.22）mg/L，明显低于对照组的（269.74±36.81）mg/L（ t=8.714， P<0.001），均较治疗前显著下降（ t对照组=24.669， P<0.001； t观察组=38.776， P<0.001）；两组患者治疗后LVEDD、LAD较治疗前下降（ t=4.031、10.166、3.715、12.569，均 P<0.05），而LVEF、FS均较治疗前升高（ t=7.610、11.906、3.915、6.105，均 P<0.05），观察组改善程度较对照组明显（ t=7.255、12.739、4.703、2.442，均 P<0.05）；两组治疗期间未发生跌倒和心血管不良事件，无死亡病例；观察组治疗后身体领域、情绪领域及其他领域评分分别为（23.96±4.75）分、（9.47±2.02）分、（26.31±1.84）分，均明显低于对照组的（28.63±5.12）分、（12.35±1.89）分、（32.76±2.49）分（ t=6.867、10.411、20.833，均 P<0.001）；两组较治疗前各项目评分明显下降（ t=6.648、14.746、28.782、35.262、9.665、27.962，均 P<0.05）；随访3个月，观察组再住院率为10.0%（10/100），明显低于对照组的22.0%（22/100）（χ 2=5.357， P=0.021）。 结论:心脏运动康复用于射血分数保留的心力衰竭治疗中可有助于改善患者心脏功能，提高其运动耐力，改善其预后，降低再住院率，提高其生活质量。

abstractsObjective:To investigate the effects of cardiac exercise rehabilitation on heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.Methods:200 patients with clinically diagnosed heart failure with preserved ejection fraction who received treatment from May to December 2019 were included in this study. They were randomly assigned to receive either routine treatment (control group, n = 100) or routine treatment combined with cardiac exercise rehabilitation (observation group, n = 100). Before and after treatment, the distance walked during the 6-minute walk test was compared between the control and observation groups. Before and after treatment, plasma level of brain natriuretic peptide, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular short-axis fractional shortening, left atrial diameter, left ventricular end diastolic diameter were compared between the two groups. Adverse events such as falls during treatment were recorded in each group. Before and after treatment, quality of life was evaluated using The Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire in each group. All patients were followed up for 3 months. Three-month rehospitalization rate was calculated in each group. Results:After treatment, the distance walked during the 6-minute walk test in the observation group was significantly longer than that in the control group [(421.63 ± 86.75) m vs. (328.44 ± 74.93) m, t = 8.130, P < 0.001). After treatment, the distance walked during the 6-minute walk test in each group was significantly increased compared with before treatment ( tcontrol group = 6.584, P < 0.001; tobservation group = 15.337, P < 0.001). After treatment, plasma level of brain natriuretic peptide in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group [(227.68 ± 31.22) mg/L vs. (269.74 ± 36.81) mg/L, t = 8.714, P < 0.001]. After treatment, plasma level of brain natriuretic peptide in each group was significantly decreased compared with before treatment ( tcontrol group = 24.669, P < 0.001; tobservation group = 38.776, P < 0.001). After treatment, left ventricular end diastolic diameter and left atrial diameter in each group were significantly decreased compared with before treatment ( t = 4.031, 10.166, 3.715 and 12.569, all P < 0.05), while left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular short-axis fractional shortening in each group were significantly increased compared with before treatment ( t = 7.610, 11.906, 3.915 and 6.105, all P < 0.05). The amplitude of improvement in abovementioned indices in the observation group was significantly greater than that in the control group ( t = 7.255, 12.739, 4.703 and 2.442, all P < 0.05). During the treatment, no falls, adverse cardiovascular events, or death occurred in each group. After treatment, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire scores in physical domain, emotional domain and other domains in the observation group were (23.96 ± 4.75) points, (9.47 ± 2.02) points, (26.31 ± 1.84) points, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in the control group [(28.63 ± 5.12) points, (12.35 ± 1.89) points and (32.76 ± 2.49) points, t = 6.867, 10.411 and 20.833, all P < 0.001]. After treatment, the Minnesota Living With Heart Failure Questionnaire scores in various domains in each group were significantly decreased compared with before treatment ( t = 6.648, 14.746, 28.782, 35.262, 9.665 and 27.962, all P < 0.05). Three-month rehospitalization rate in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group [10.0% (10/100) vs. 22.0% (22/100), χ2 = 5.357, P = 0.021]. Conclusion:Cardiac exercise rehabilitation for the treatment of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction can help improve the heart function, increase exercise endurance, improve prognosis, reduce rehospitalization rate, and improve quality of life.