Key result
Respiratory training interventions significantly improved peak oxygen uptake (SMD 1.47), 6-minute walking distance (SMD 1.06), and quality of life (SMD -1.14) compared to control in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Prior studies suggest breathing exercises improve physical performance and QoL in heart failure patients, but the effects remain unclear and contradictory.
Do machine-assisted and non-machine-assisted respiratory training interventions improve physical performance and quality of life in heart failure patients?
Population
Heart failure patients
Comparison
Machine-assisted vs non-machine-assisted respiratory training
Design
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Authors
Loading...
Supports high/medium-intensity machine-assisted respiratory training in hospital HF patients; confirms benefits on exercise capacity and QoL.
Meta-Analysis (n=1,499)
Do machine-assisted and non-machine-assisted respiratory training interventions improve physical performance and quality of life in heart failure patients?
Standardized Mean Difference: 1.47 (95% CI 0.77–2.17)
Respiratory training, both machine-assisted during hospitalization and non-machine-assisted post-discharge, improves exercise capacity, quality of life, and cardiac function in patients with heart failure.
Wang et al. (2019) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=1,499). Respiratory training interventions vs. Usual care, standard treatment, or education was evaluated on Peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak) (SMD 1.47, 95% CI 0.77-2.17). Respiratory training interventions significantly improved peak oxygen uptake (SMD 1.47), 6-minute walking distance (SMD 1.06), and quality of life (SMD -1.14) compared to control in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: