Key result
The HF-EI trial is a planned multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of high-intensity versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training on peak VO2 and quality of life in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Why the study?
Exercise-based rehabilitation benefits chronic heart failure, but specific guidance on optimal exercise intensity for clinical decision-making is lacking.
Does supervised high-intensity or moderate-intensity exercise training improve peak VO2, quality of life, and clinical events in patients with HFrEF?
RCT (n=180)
Assessor-blinded (examiners, data managers, and statisticians blinded; patients and operators unblinded)
Block-randomization, stratified by center (1:1:1 ratio)
Yes
Does supervised high-intensity or moderate-intensity exercise training improve peak VO2, quality of life, and clinical events in patients with HFrEF?
This trial design outlines a study to determine the optimal aerobic exercise intensity (high vs. moderate) for improving peak VO2, quality of life, and clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF.
May support intensity-tailored exercise in HFrEF; leaves open definitive guidelines pending larger trials.
Background: Heart failure (HF) is one of the major causes of mortality worldwide, representing the terminal stage of several cardiovascular diseases. Exercise-based rehabilitation is a beneficial therapy for patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). However, there is a lack of specific guidance on clinical decision-making regarding optimal exercise intensity. It is necessary to optimize the clinical recommendations for HF exercises. We will evaluate the efficacy and safety of different aerobic exercise intensities in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF): the HF-EI trial. This trial aims to assess the appropriate exercise intensity for patients with HFrEF. Methods: After a baseline assessment to determine the safety of exercise, 180 patients will be randomly assigned to supervised high-intensity exercise training (ET) group, supervised moderate intensity training (MIT) group, and control group at a ratio of 1:1:1. Patients randomly receiving high intensity training (HIT) undergo supervised ET (3 times/week, 30 min) for aerobic endurance at 70% peak oxygen consumption (peak VO 2 ) intensity for 12 weeks. The MIT patients will perform supervised aerobic ET (3 times/week, 35–42 min) at the anaerobic threshold (AT) intensity for 12 weeks. The control group will continue to maintain their daily activities and will not receive ET. During the baseline and follow-up period, physical examination, laboratory tests, cardiology diagnostic tests, cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET), 6-min walk distance (6MWD), scale scores, exercise steps, medications, and clinical events will be monitored. Throughout the research, sport bracelets and patient diaries will be used to monitor and record overall physical activity, training courses, and compliance. Discussion: The HF-EI trial will evaluate the effects of different aerobic exercise intensities on peak VO 2 , quality of life (QoL), and clinical events among patients with HFrEF. The findings of this trial will provide a basis for formulating exercise prescriptions for patients with HFrEF. Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/ , identifier: ChiCTR2000036381.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shen et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=180). High-intensity training (HIT) and Moderate-intensity training (MIT) vs. Usual medication and daily activities (control) was evaluated on Change in peak VO2 and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) scores after 12 weeks. The HF-EI trial is a planned multicenter randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effects of high-intensity versus moderate-intensity aerobic exercise training on peak VO2 and quality of life in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: