Key result
Cardiac rehabilitation reduces HF hospital admissions and boosts functional capacity, with uncertain mortality effects.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation addresses exercise intolerance and impaired quality of life in heart failure, warranting an examination of clinical assessment, exercise prescription, multidisciplinary care, and rehabilitation delivery across historical HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF populations.
Does comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation improve functional outcomes, health-related quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality in patients with heart failure across HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF phenotypes?
Does comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation improve functional outcomes, health-related quality of life, hospitalization, and mortality in patients with heart failure across HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF phenotypes?
Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation improves functional capacity, health-related quality of life, and reduces all-cause hospital admissions in heart failure patients, warranting individualized prescription based on clinical stability, functional capacity, and comorbidities.
Background/Objectives: Cardiac rehabilitation addresses exercise intolerance and impaired quality of life in heart failure. This review examines clinical assessment, exercise prescription, multidisciplinary care, and rehabilitation delivery across populations described using historical HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF. Methods: This narrative review discusses randomized trials, observational studies, systematic reviews, professional guidelines, and position statements. Functional and patient-reported outcomes are considered separately from hospitalization and mortality, with attention to population differences and limitations of extrapolation. Results: Exercise intolerance reflects varying contributions from central haemodynamic limitations, peripheral abnormalities, and comorbidities. CPET can support functional assessment and individualized exercise prescription. Aerobic and resistance training improve selected functional outcomes, while complementary interventions should address individual clinical needs. Evidence supports improvements in health-related quality of life and reductions in all-cause hospital admissions, whereas mortality effects remain uncertain. Direct evidence is uneven across historical LVEF categories and advanced HF populations. Conclusions: Rehabilitation should be individualized according to stability, functional capacity, comorbidities, and patient preferences. Historical categories are retained to preserve the population definitions of the underlying studies despite the revised 2026 ESC classification. Home-based and hybrid programmes provide additional delivery options, while omics-guided approaches require further validation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Salwa et al. (2026) conducted a review in Heart failure (HFrEF, HFmrEF, and HFpEF). Comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (aerobic and resistance training, multidisciplinary care) was evaluated on Functional outcomes, health-related quality of life, all-cause hospital admissions, and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation improves functional capacity and quality of life and reduces all-cause hospital admissions in heart failure, though mortality effects remain uncertain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: