PRIME training followed by COMBO significantly increased peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak) by 2.4 mL/kg/min compared to 0.2 mL/kg/min with COMBO alone (between-group effect size 1.0).
RCT (n=19)
parallel
Open-label blinded end point
No
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=19)
PRIME (Peripheral Remodeling through Intermittent Muscular Exercise) followed by COMBO vs 8 weeks of COMBO (combined moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance training) (Twice a week for 60 minutes; 4 weeks of PRIME followed by 4 weeks of COMBO)
Change in peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak) at 8 weeks — Effect size 1.0, p=0.004
Effect estimate: Effect size 1.0
Absolute Event Rate: 2.4% vs 0.2%
p-value: p=0.004
OBJECTIVES To test the hypothesis that (1) older patients with heart failure (HF) can tolerate COMBined moderate‐intensity aerobic and resistance training (COMBO), and (2) 4 weeks of Peripheral Remodeling through Intermittent Muscular Exercise (PRIME) before 4 weeks of COMBO will improve aerobic capacity and muscle strength to a greater extent than 8 weeks of COMBO. DESIGN Prospective randomized parallel open‐label blinded end point. SETTING Single‐site Australian metropolitan hospital. PARTICIPANTS Nineteen adults (72.8 ± 8.4 years of age) with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). INTERVENTION Participants were randomized to 4 weeks of PRIME or COMBO (phase 1). All participants subsequently completed 4 weeks of COMBO (phase 2). Sessions were twice a week for 60 minutes. PRIME is a low‐mass, high‐repetition regime (40% one‐repetition maximum 1RM, eight strength exercises, 5 minutes each). COMBO training involved combined aerobic (40%‐60% of peak aerobic capacity VO 2peak , up to 20 minutes) and resistance training (50‐70% 1RM, eight exercises, two sets of 10 repetitions). MEASUREMENTS We measured VO 2peak , VO 2 at anaerobic threshold (AT), and muscle voluntary contraction (MVC). RESULTS The PRIME group significantly increased VO 2peak after 8 weeks (2.4 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval CI = .7‐4.1; P = .004), whereas the COMBO group showed minimal change (.2; 95% CI −1.5 to 1.8). This produced a large between‐group effect size of 1.0. VO 2 at AT increased in the PRIME group (1.6 mL/kg/min; 95% CI .0‐3.2) but not in the COMBO group (−1.2; 95% CI −2.9 to .4), producing a large between‐group effect size. Total MVC increased significantly in both groups in comparison with baseline; however, the change was larger in the COMBO group (effect size = .6). CONCLUSION Traditional exercise approaches (COMBO) and PRIME improved strength. Only PRIME training produced statistically and clinically significant improvements to aerobic capacity. Taken together, these findings support the hypothesis that PRIME may have potential advantages for older patients with HFrEF and could be a possible alternative exercise modality.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Catherine Giuliano
Western Health
Itamar Levinger
Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Science
Sara Vogrin
The University of Melbourne
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
The University of Melbourne
University of Virginia
Victoria University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Giuliano et al. (Wed,) conducted a rct in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) (n=19). PRIME (Peripheral Remodeling through Intermittent Muscular Exercise) followed by COMBO vs. 8 weeks of COMBO (combined moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance training) was evaluated on Change in peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak) at 8 weeks (Effect size 1.0, p=0.004). PRIME training followed by COMBO significantly increased peak aerobic capacity (VO2peak) by 2.4 mL/kg/min compared to 0.2 mL/kg/min with COMBO alone (between-group effect size 1.0).
synapsesocial.com/papers/6a123fd1e407b26696347d98 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16428
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: