Why the study?
The effects of exercise training at different intensity levels on cardiac function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in chronic heart failure patients needed investigation.
Does exercise training at different intensity levels improve peak oxygen uptake and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure?
Does exercise training at different intensity levels improve peak oxygen uptake and exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure?
Mild anaerobic exercise (Δ50% power above anaerobic threshold) is safe and more effective than aerobic exercise (80% anaerobic threshold) for improving exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support supra-AT intensity for greater VO2 gains in heart failure rehab; hypothesis-generating pending randomized confirmation.
Objective: To investigate training at different intensity levels on cardiac function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure.Methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled patients with chronic heart failure at Beijing Rehabilitation Hospital, Beijing, China from January 2018 to January 2020. Participants received conventional therapy (non-exercise group) or therapy plus cycle ergometer exercises at an intensity of 80% anaerobic threshold (EA group) and Δ50% power above anaerobic threshold (EB group) for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake.Results: Forty-five patients (15/group) completed the study without serious complications. Exercise training at an intensity of Δ50% power above anaerobic threshold had better effects on exercise capacity than exercise at an intensity of 80% anaerobic threshold, as shown by a greater improvement in peak oxygen uptake (20.3 ± 4.1 vs 16.8 ± 3.2 mL/min/kg), peak O2 pulse (12.5 ± 2.3 vs 10.1 ± 2.1 mL/beat), and peak workload (123.1 ± 26.9 vs 102.8 ± 29.5 W) in patients with chronic heart failure (all p < 0.001). Exercise improved the 6-min walk test distance (control: 394.0 ± 74.1; EA: 481.4 ± 89.4; EB: 508.9 ± 92.5 m; p < 0.001) and health-related quality of life (control: 40.7 ± 12.3; EA: 16.2 ± 8.6; EB: 11.5 ± 6.4; p < 0.001).Conclusion: Compared with an intensity of 80% anaerobic threshold, exercise training at an intensity of Δ 50% power above anaerobic threshold was safe and had better effects on cardiac function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life. LAY ABSTRACTThe aim of this study was to investigate training at different intensity levels on cardiac function, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure. Exercise training at an intensity of Δ 50% power above anaerobic threshold (mild anaerobic exercise) had better effects on exercise capacity than non-exercise and intensity of 80% anaerobic threshold (aerobic exercise). In addition, exercise resulted in improved health-related quality of life compared with non-exercise. Therefore, the benefit may be greater if the exercise intensity is increased appropriately under safe conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: