Key result
High-intensity interval training (difference 1.5) and moderate continuous training (difference 2.0) did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 2.5 mL/kg/min for peak V̇o2 at 3 months.
Why the study?
Endurance exercise improves peak Vo2 in patients with HFpEF, but whether differing modes of exercise have different effects remains unknown.
Does high-intensity interval training or moderate continuous training improve peak oxygen consumption in sedentary patients with chronic, stable HFpEF compared to guideline-based physical activity advice?
RCT (n=180)
Single-blind
1:1:1
Yes
Does high-intensity interval training or moderate continuous training improve peak oxygen consumption in sedentary patients with chronic, stable HFpEF compared to guideline-based physical activity advice?
Mean Difference: 1.5 (95% CI 0.4–2.7)
Absolute Event Rate: 1.1% vs -0.6%
In patients with HFpEF, neither high-intensity interval training nor moderate continuous training provided a clinically important improvement in peak oxygen consumption compared to guideline-based physical activity advice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neither HIIT nor moderate continuous training improves peak VO2 beyond guideline advice in HFpEF; challenges routine prescription of intensive regimens over standard counseling.
Mueller et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) (n=180). High-intensity interval training vs. Guideline control was evaluated on Change in peak V̇o2 after 3 months (MD 1.5, 95% CI 0.4 to 2.7). High-intensity interval training (difference 1.5) and moderate continuous training (difference 2.0) did not meet the minimal clinically important difference of 2.5 mL/kg/min for peak V̇o2 at 3 months.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: