Why the study?
Does exercise training improve peak oxygen consumption in patients with congestive heart failure treated with nonselective beta-blockers?
Does exercise training improve peak oxygen consumption in patients with congestive heart failure treated with nonselective beta-blockers?
Exercise training significantly improves peak aerobic capacity in heart failure patients even when treated with nonselective beta-blockers like carvedilol or propranolol.
May support exercise training in HF patients on nonselective beta-blockers; hypothesis-generating, requiring randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: Long-term beta-adrenergic blockade does not appear to be associated with drug-induced training in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF); whether exercise training can increase peak aerobic capacity in patients with CHF who are treated with beta-adrenergic blockers is currently unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 23 patients with CHF who were treated with carvedilol or propranolol in addition to ACE inhibitors, furosemide, and digoxin. Of the patients treated with carvedilol, 8 underwent exercise training and 8 remained sedentary. All 7 patients treated with propranolol underwent exercise training. Peak oxygen consumption (mL.kg-1.min-1) was serially measured in trained and sedentary patients. Peak reactive hyperemia (mL.min-1.100 mL-1) was determined in the calf and forearm immediately before and after 12 weeks of training. The peak oxygen consumption of trained patients treated with either carvedilol or propranolol increased from 12.9 +/- 1.4 to 16.0 +/- 1.6 (P < .001) and 12.4 +/- 1.0 to 15.7 +/- 0.9 (P < .001) mL.kg-1.min-1, respectively, whereas it did not change in the sedentary patients. Peak reactive hyperemia increased significantly in the calves but not the forearms of trained patients. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, nonselective beta-adrenergic blockade with carvedilol or propranolol does not prevent patients with CHF from deriving systemic and regional benefits from physical training.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Demopoulos et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: