Dataset Information

Home-based training program in patients with chronic heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: a randomized pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We aimed to compare the effects of home-and center-based exercise training programs on functional capacity, inspiratory muscle strength, daily physical activity level, and quality of life (QoL) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) over a 12-week period.

Methods

This study included 23 patients with CHF (left ventricular ejection fraction 31±6%) randomized to a home-based (n=11) or center-based (n=12) program. Patients underwent 12 weeks of aerobic training (60%-70% heart rate reserve): walking for the home-based and supervised cycling for the center-based group, both combined with resistance training (50% of 1 maximum repetition). At baseline and after 12 weeks of training, we assessed cardiopulmonary test variables, 6-min walk test distance (6 MWD), steps/day with accelerometry, and QoL (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire). Maximal inspiratory pressure and handgrip strength were measured at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of training. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03615157.

Results

There were no adverse events during training in either group. The home- and center-based training groups obtained similar improvements in peak oxygen uptake, maximal ventilation, and 6 MWD. However, there were significant between-group differences: center-based training was more effective in improving maximal inspiratory pressure (p=0.042), number of steps/day (p=0.001), and QoL (p=0.039).

Conclusions

Home-based training is safe and can be an alternative to improve the exercise capacity of patients with stable CHF. However, center-based training was superior in improving inspiratory muscle strength, QoL, and daily physical activity.

SUBMITTER: Andrade GN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8158670 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to identify significant factors affecting the effectiveness of exercise training using information of the HF-ACTION (Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training) study.MethodsBackground factors influencing the effect of exercise training were comprehensively surveyed for 2,130 patients by multivariable Cox regression analysis with the stepwise variable selection, and only significant factors were selected that were statistically distinguished from dummy noise factors using the Boruta method.ResultsThe analysis suggested that the use of beta-blockers, pulse pressure, hemoglobin level, electrocardiography findings, body mass index, and history of stroke at baseline potentially influenced the exercise effect on all-cause death (AD). Therefore, a hypothetical score to estimate the effect of exercise training was constructed based on the analysis. The analysis suggested that the score is useful in identifying patients for whom exercise training may be significantly effective in reducing all-caused death and hospitalization (ADH) as well as AD. Such a subpopulation accounted for approximately 40% of the overall study population. On the other hand, in approximately 45% of patients, the effect of exercise was unclear on either AD or ADH. In the remaining 15% of patients, it was estimated that the effect of exercise might be unclear for ADH and potentially rather increase AD.ConclusionsThis study is the first analysis to comprehensively evaluate the effects of various factors on the outcome of exercise training in chronic heart failure, underscoring the need to carefully consider the patient's background before recommending exercise training. However, it should be noted that exercise training can improve many outcomes in a wide variety of diseases. Therefore, given the limitations involved in post-hoc analyses of a single clinical trial, the characteristics of patients to whom the results of this analysis can be applied need attention, and also further research is necessary on the relationship between the degree of exercise and the outcomes. A new clinical trial would be needed to confirm the factors detected and the appropriateness of the score.

Project description:AimsThis study aimed to investigate the prognostic value of dynamic changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in an all-comer heart failure (HF) population with reduced EF (HFrEF, EF < 40%). We sought to identify independent factors related to improvement in EF and to identify risk factors for increased risk of CV events in the subgroups of improved EF (iEF) and non-improved EF (niEF), respecively.Methods and resultsThis is a retrospective sub-analysis from the REDEAL HF trial, which included consecutive patients with chronic HF who were hospitalized from July 2009 to December 2017. Baseline and follow-up echocardiography data (interval ≥12 months) of 573 consecutive patients with HFrEF were analysed. iEF was defined as absolute improvement in EF ≥ 10% and follow-up EF over 40%. The primary endpoint was defined as a composite endpoint of cardiovascular (CV) death, CV hospitalization, or appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. EF improved in 37.2% of patients with HFrEF during follow-up (median period of 17 months). iEF was independently associated with shorter HF duration (>4 vs. ≤4 years, odd ratio [OR] = 0.477, 95% CI 0.305-0.745), no coronary artery disease (CAD vs. no CAD, OR = 0.583, 95% CI 0.396-0.858), and no ICD implantation (ICD vs. no ICD, OR = 0.341, 95% CI 0.228-0.511). Compared with niEF, iEF was significantly and independently associated with lower all-cause mortality (22.1% vs. 31.1%, P = 0.019; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.674, 95% CI 0.469-0.968), lower CV mortality (8.9% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.015; HR = 0.539, 95% CI 0.317-0.916), and lower CV events risk (27.2% vs. 49.2%, P < 0.001; HR 0.519, 95% CI 0.381-0.708), after adjustment for age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors. Hypertension (HR = 2.452, P = 0.032) and elevated N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP >1153 pg/mL, HR = 4.372, P < 0.001) were identified as independent risk factors for CV events in the iEF subgroup. ICD implantation (HR = 1.533, P = 0.011), elevated NT-proBNP (HR = 1.626, P = 0.018), increased left atrial volume index (HR = 1.461, P = 0.021), reduced lateral mitral annular plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.478, P = 0.025), and reduced tricuspid plane systolic excursion (HR = 1.491, P = 0.039) were identified as risk factors for CV events in the niEF subgroup.ConclusionsImprovement in EF is independently related to the longer survival and lower CV related mortality and hospitalization rate of HFrEF. Elevated baseline NT-proBNP is identified as the strongest prognostic factor associated with increased CV events risk in HFrEF patients both with and without improved EF, regardless of age, sex, duration of HF, and other clinical risk factors.

Project description:AimsHeart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is associated with a favourable prognosis compared with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (EF). We assessed whether left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) trajectory can be used to identify groups of patients with HFmrEF who have different clinical outcomes in a large retrospective study of patients with serial imaging.Methods and resultsPatients with HF and ≥2 echocardiograms performed ≥6 months apart were included if the LVEF measured 40-49% on the second study. Patients were classified as HFmrEF-Increasing if LVEF had increased ≥10% (n = 450), HFmrEF-Decreasing if LVEF had decreased ≥10% (n = 512), or HFmrEF-Stable if they did not meet other criteria (n = 389). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization after the second echocardiogram. Associations with time to first event were assessed with multivariable Cox analyses adjusted for age, co-morbidities, and medications. In total, 1351 patients with HFmrEF (median age 74, 64.2% male) were included with 28.8% exhibiting stable LVEF. During median follow-up of 15.3 months, the composite outcome occurred in 811 patients. During follow-up, patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.88, P < 0.001] compared with HFmrEF-Stable. Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing were more likely to experience the composite outcome in unadjusted analyses (unadjusted HR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01-1.40, P = 0.040) but not adjusted analyses (adjusted HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.37, P = 0.092). Associations with death or HF hospitalizations were similar (HFmrEF-Increasing: adjusted HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88, P = 0.005; HFmrEF-Decreasing: adjusted HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01-1.44, P = 0.044). Patients with HFmrEF-Decreasing had a similar risk of the composite outcome as patients with HF with reduced EF (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.89-1.20, P = 0.670). Patients with HFmrEF-Increasing were less likely to experience the composite outcome compared with patients with HF with preserved EF (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAmongst patients with HFmrEF, those exhibiting positive LVEF trajectory were less likely to experience adverse outcomes after correcting for important confounders including medical therapy. Categorizing HFmrEF patients based on LVEF trajectory provides meaningful clinical information and may assist clinicians with management decisions.

Project description:IntroductionA worsening heart failure event (WHFE) is defined as progressively escalating heart failure signs/symptoms requiring intravenous diuretic treatment or hospitalization. No studies have compared the burden of chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) following a WHFE versus stable disease to inform healthcare decision makers.MethodsA retrospective study using the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database included patients younger than 65 years of age with HFrEF (one inpatient or two outpatient claims of systolic HF or one outpatient claim of systolic HF plus one outpatient claim of any HF). The first claim for HFrEF during 2016 was the index date. Patients were followed for the first 12 months after the index date (the worsening assessment period) to identify a WHFE, and for an additional 12 months or until the end of continuous enrollment (the post-worsening assessment period). Mean per patient per month (PPPM) health care resource use (HCRU) and costs were compared between patients following a WHFE and stable patients during the two periods using generalized linear models adjusting for patient characteristics.ResultsOf 16,646 patients with chronic HFrEF, 26.8% developed a WHFE. Adjusted all-cause hospitalizations (0.16 vs. 0.02 PPPM, P < 0.0001), outpatient visits (3.54 vs. 2.73 PPPM, P < 0.0001), and emergency department visits (0.25 vs. 0.06 PPPM, P < 0.0001) were higher in patients following a WHFE than stable patients during the worsening assessment period. Similar differences in HCRU were observed between the two cohorts during the post-worsening assessment period. Mean total adjusted cost of care PPPM was $8657 in patients with HFrEF following a WHFE versus $2195 in stable patients during the worsening assessment period, and $6809 versus $2849, respectively, during the post-worsening assessment period.ConclusionHCRU and costs were significantly greater in patients with chronic HFrEF following a WHFE compared to those who remained stable, suggesting an unmet need to improve clinical and economic outcomes among these patients.