Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:20:49.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Motor training of sixty minutes once per week improves motor ability in children with congenital heart disease and retarded motor development: a pilot study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2012

Jan Müller ,
Milka Pringsheim ,
Andrea Engelhardt ,
Juliana Meixner ,
Martin Halle ,
Renate Oberhoffer ,
John Hess  and
Alfred Hager
Jan Müller*
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany Institute of Preventive Pediatrics, Technische Universität München, Germany
Milka Pringsheim
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany
Andrea Engelhardt
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany
Juliana Meixner
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany
Martin Halle
Affiliation:
Preventive and Rehabilitative Sports Medicine, Technische Universität München, Germany Munich Heart Alliance, Munich, Germany
Renate Oberhoffer
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany Institute of Preventive Pediatrics, Technische Universität München, Germany
John Hess
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany
Alfred Hager
Affiliation:
Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany
*
Correspondence to: J. Müller, PhD, Department of Pediatric Cardiology and Congenital Heart Disease, Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Technische Universität München, Lazarettstr. 36, D-80636 München, Germany. Tel: +49 89 1218 3009; Fax: +49 89 1218 3003; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Delay and impairment of motor development is reported in patients with congenital heart disease. This pilot study addressed the feasibility and effect of a low-dose motor training programme of 60 min once per week on motor ability in preschool children with congenital heart disease.

Patients and methods

In all, 14 children – including four girls, in the age group of 4–6 years – with various types of congenital heart disease performed the motor developmental test MOT 4–6 before and after 3 months of a playful exercise programme of 60 min once a week.

Results

At baseline, the motor quotient ranged from normal to slightly impaired (median 92.0; Quartile 1: 83.75; Quartile 3: 101.25). After intervention, motor quotient did not change significantly for the entire group (95.0 (88.0, 102.5); p = 0.141). However, in the subgroup of nine children with retarded motor development at baseline (motor quotient lower 100), seven children had an improved motor quotient after 3 months of intervention. In this subgroup, motor quotient increased significantly (p = 0.020) by 5%.

Conclusions

Overall, a short intervention programme of 60 min only once a week does not improve motor ability in all children with congenital heart disease. However, those with retarded motor development profit significantly from this low-dose intervention.

Keywords

Congenital heart diseaseinterventiontrainingmotor development
Type
Original Articles
Information
Cardiology in the Young , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 717 - 721
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bjarnason-Wehrens, B, Dordel, S, Schickendantz, S, et al. Motor development in children with congenital cardiac diseases compared to their healthy peers. Cardiol Young 2007: 1–12.Google Scholar
2. Dordel, S, Bjarnason-Wehrens, B, Lawrenz, W, et al. Efficiency of psychomotor training of children with partly corrected congenital heart disease. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 1999; 50.Google Scholar
3. Holm, I, Fredriksen, PM, Fosdahl, MA, Olstad, M, Vollestad, N. Impaired motor competence in school-aged children with complex congenital heart disease. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2007; 161: 945–950.Google Scholar
4. Hovels-Gurich, HH, Seghaye, MC, Dabritz, S, Messmer, BJ, von Bernuth, G. Cognitive and motor development in preschool and school-aged children after neonatal arterial switch operation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1997; 114: 578–585.Google Scholar
5. Limperopoulos, C, Majnemer, A, Shevell, MI, et al. Predictors of developmental disabilities after open heart surgery in young children with congenital heart defects. J Pediatr 2002; 141: 51–58.Google Scholar
6. Losse, A, Henderson, SE, Elliman, D, Hall, D, Knight, E, Jongmans, M. Clumsiness in children – do they grow out of it? A 10-year follow-up study. Dev Med Child Neurol 1991; 33: 55–68.Google Scholar
7. Stieh, J, Kramer, HH, Harding, P, Fischer, G. Gross and fine motor development is impaired in children with cyanotic congenital heart disease. Neuropediatrics 1999; 30: 77–82.Google Scholar
8. Schmitz, S, Dordel, S, Bott, D, et al. Fine motor abilities in children with congenital heart diseases compared to healthy peers. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2008, Supplement EuroPrevent Congress Paris 2008:116.Google Scholar
9. Mooren, FC, Winter, K, Neumann-Wedekindt, U, et al. Effect of a 3 months swim training of children with corrected congenital heart disease – a pilot study. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin 2002; 53.Google Scholar
10. Bellinger, DC, Jonas, RA, Rappaport, LA, et al. Developmental and neurologic status of children after heart surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest or low-flow cardiopulmonary bypass. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 549–555.Google Scholar
11. Bellinger, DC, Wypij, D, Kuban, KC, et al. Developmental and neurological status of children at 4 years of age after heart surgery with hypothermic circulatory arrest or low-flow cardiopulmonary bypass. Circulation 1999; 100: 526–532.Google Scholar
12. Müller, J, Christov, F, Schreiber, C, Hess, J, Hager, A. Exercise capacity, quality of life, and daily activity in the long-term follow-up of patients with univentricular heart and total cavopulmonary connection. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 2915–2920.Google Scholar
13. Dua, JS, Cooper, AR, Fox, KR, Graham Stuart, A. Physical activity levels in adults with congenital heart disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 2007; 14: 287–293.Google Scholar
14. Fredriksen, PM, Ingjer, E, Thaulow, E. Physical activity in children and adolescents with congenital heart disease. Aspects of measurements with an activity monitor. Cardiol Young 2000; 10: 98–106.Google Scholar
15. Müller, J, Hess, J, Hager, A. Daily physical activity in adults with congenital heart disease is positively correlated with exercise capacity but not with quality of life. Clin Res Cardiol 2012; 101: 55–61.Google Scholar
16. Utens, EM, Verhulst, FC, Erdman, RA, et al. Psychosocial functioning of young adults after surgical correction for congenital heart disease in childhood: a follow-up study. J Psychosom Res 1994; 38: 745–758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Moons, P, Barrea, C, Suys, B, et al. Improved perceived health status persists three months after a special sports camp for children with congenital heart disease. Eur J Pediatr 2006; 165: 767–772.Google Scholar
18. Zimmer, R, Volkamer, M. Manual MOT 4-6 Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder 2. überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage edn. Weinheim: Belz, 1987.Google Scholar
19. Unverdorben, M, Singer, H, Zrägler, M, et al. Reduzierte koordinative Leistungsfähigkeit herzkranker Kinder – nicht nur ein medizinisches Problem? Herz Kreisl 1997; 29: 181–184.Google Scholar
20. Swan, L, Hillis, WS. Exercise prescription in adults with congenital heart disease: a long way to go. Heart 2000; 83: 685–687.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Müller Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Müller Supplementary Material(File)
File 24.1 KB