Meta-Analysis of Aerobic Interval Training on Exercise Capacity and Systolic Function in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fractions

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology Vol. 111; no. 10; pp. 1466 - 1469
• Main Authors: Haykowsky, Mark J., PhD, Timmons, Meagan P, Kruger, Calvin, McNeely, Margaret, PhD, Taylor, Dylan A., MD, Clark, Alexander M., PhD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 15.05.2013; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Cardiovascular; Clinical trials; Drug therapy; Exercise; Exercise - physiology; Exercise Test; Exercise Therapy - methods; Heart attacks; Heart failure; Heart Failure - physiopathology; Heart Failure - rehabilitation; Humans; Oxygen Consumption; Stroke Volume; Systole; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left; Ventricular Remodeling
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.01.303

It is unknown if vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training (INT) is more effective than traditionally prescribed moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MCT) for improving peak oxygen uptake (V o2 ) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched using the following keywords: “heart failure,” high-intensity interval exercise,” “high-intensity interval training,” “aerobic interval training,” and “high-intensity aerobic interval training.” Seven randomized trials were identified comparing the effects of INT and MCT on peak V o2 , 5 of which measured the LVEF at rest. The trials included clinically stable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with impaired left ventricular systolic function (mean LVEF 32%) who were relatively young (mean age 61 years) and predominantly men (82%). Weighted mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model. INT led to significantly higher increases in peak V o2 compared with MCT (INT vs MCT, weighted mean difference 2.14 ml O2 /kg/min, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.63). Comparison of the effects of INT and MCT on the LVEF at rest was inconclusive (INT vs MCT, weighted mean difference 3.29%, 95% confidence interval −0.7% to 7.28%). In conclusion, in clinically stable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, INT is more effective than MCT for improving peak V o2 but not the LVEF at rest.