Dataset Information

Vasodilation and Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure after One Session of High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by a limited exercising capacity. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an emerging strategy for exercise rehabilitation in different settings. In patients with HFpEF, HIIT subacute effects on endothelial function and blood pressure are still unknown. OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the subacute effect of one HIIT session on endothelial function and blood pressure in patients with HFpEF. METHODS:Sixteen patients with HFpEF underwent a 36-minute session of HIIT on a treadmill, alternating four minutes of high-intensity intervals with three minutes of active recovery. Brachial artery diameter, flow-mediated dilation, and blood pressure were assessed immediately before and 30 minutes after the HIIT session. In all analyses, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:There was an increase in brachial artery diameter (pre-exercise: 3.96 ± 0.57 mm; post-exercise: 4.33 ± 0.69 mm; p < 0.01) and a decrease in systolic blood pressure (pre-exercise: 138 ± 21 mmHg; post-exercise: 125 ± 20 mmHg; p < 0.01). Flow-mediated dilation (pre-exercise: 5.91 ± 5.20%; post-exercise: 3.55 ± 6.59%; p = 0.162) and diastolic blood pressure (pre-exercise: 81 ± 11 mmHg; post-exercise: 77 ± 8 mmHg; p = 1.000) did not change significantly. There were no adverse events throughout the experiment. CONCLUSIONS:One single HIIT session promoted an increase in brachial artery diameter and reduction in systolic blood pressure, but it did not change flow-mediated dilation and diastolic blood pressure.

SUBMITTER: Lima JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6248251 | biostudies-other | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Vasodilation and Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure after One Session of High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Lima Juliana Beust de JB Silveira Anderson Donelli da ADD Saffi Marco Aurélio Lumertz MAL Menezes Márcio Garcia MG Piardi Diogo Silva DS Ramm Leila Denise Cardoso Ramos LDCR Zanini Maurice M Stein Rosane Maria Nery Ricardo RMNR

Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia 20181018 5

<h4>Background</h4>Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is a multifactorial syndrome characterized by a limited exercising capacity. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is an emerging strategy for exercise rehabilitation in different settings. In patients with HFpEF, HIIT subacute effects on endothelial function and blood pressure are still unknown.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the subacute effect of one HIIT session on endothelial function and blood pressure in patients wi ...[more]

PMID: 30365604

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExercise training significantly improves cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, but high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is not superior to moderate-intensity interval training (MIIT). Whether HIIT is more beneficial than MIIT in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.MethodsOn August 29, 2021, we conducted a comprehensive computerized literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases using the following keywords: "HF or diastolic HF or HFpEF or HF with normal ejection fraction and exercise training or aerobic exercise or isometric exercises or physical activity or cardiac rehabilitation." Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting comparisons between HIIT and MIIT in HFpEF were included in the final analysis to maintain consistency and obtain robust pooled estimates. Methodological quality was assessed based on the ratings of individual biases. To generate an overall test statistic, the data were analyzed using the random-effects model for a generic inverse variance. Outcome measures were reported as an odds ratio, and confidence intervals (CIs) were set at 95%. The study followed PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThis meta-analysis included only RCTs comparing the efficacy of HIIT and MIIT in HFpEF patients. This study included 150 patients from 3 RCTs. In the current pooled data analysis, HIIT significantly improves diastolic function measured by E/A ratio (WMD, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.23, P = .009). However, no significant change was observed in the diastolic function measured by E/e' ratio (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, -2.40 to 3.18, P = .78), and CRF evaluated by both VO2 (mL/kg per min; WMD, -0.86; 95%CI, -5.27 to 3.55, P = .70) and VE/CO2 slope (WMD, 0.15; 95% CI, -10.24 to 10.53, P = .98), and systolic function (EF-WMD, -2.39; 95% CI, -12.16% to 7.38%, P = .63) between HIIT and MIIT in patients with HFpEF.ConclusionIn HFpEF patients, HIIT may be superior to MIIT in improving diastolic function, measured by E/A, but not CRF and left ventricular systolic function.

Project description:Background: The pathophysiology of HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) has not yet been fully understood and HFpEF is often misdiagnosed. Remodeling and fibrosis stimulated by inflammation appear to be main factors for the progression of HFpEF. In contrast to patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, medical treatment in HFpEF is limited to relieving HF symptoms. Since mortality in HFpEF patients remains unacceptably high with a 5-year survival rate of only 30%, new treatment strategies are urgently needed. Exercise seems to be a valid option. However, the optimal training regime still has to be elucidated. Therefore, the aim of the study is to investigate the effects of a high-intensity interval (HIT) training vs. a moderate continuous training (MCT) on exercise capacity and disease-specific mechanisms in a cohort of patients with HFpEF. Methods: The proposed study will be a prospective, randomized controlled trial in a primary care setting including 86 patients with stable HFpEF. Patients will undergo measurements of exercise capacity, disease-specific blood biomarkers, cardiac and arterial vessel structure and function, total hemoglobin mass, metabolic requirements, habitual physical activity, and quality of life (QoL) at baseline and follow-up. After the baseline visit, patients will be randomized to the intervention or control group. The intervention group (n = 43) will attend a supervised 12-week HIT on a bicycle ergometer combined with strength training. The control group (n = 43) will receive an isocaloric supervised MCT combined with strength training. After 12 weeks, study measurements will be repeated in all patients to quantify the effects of the intervention. In addition, telephone interviews will be performed at 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after the last visit to assess clinical outcomes and QoL. Discussion: We anticipate clinically significant changes in exercise capacity, expressed as VO2peak, as well as in disease-specific mechanisms following HIT compared to MCT. Moreover, the study is expected to add important knowledge on the pathophysiology of HFpEF and the clinical benefits of a training intervention as a novel treatment strategy in HFpEF patients, which may help to improve both QoL and functional status in affected patients. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03184311, Registered 9 June 2017.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the frequency and magnitude of impaired systolic deformation in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).BackgroundAlthough diastolic dysfunction is widely considered a key pathophysiologic mediator of HFpEF, the prevalence of concomitant systolic dysfunction has not been clearly defined.MethodsWe assessed myocardial systolic and diastolic function in 219 HFpEF patients from a contemporary HFpEF clinical trial. Myocardial deformation was assessed using a vendor-independent 2-dimensional speckle-tracking software. The frequency and severity of impaired deformation was assessed in HFpEF, and compared to 50 normal controls free of cardiovascular disease and to 44 age- and sex-matched hypertensive patients with diastolic dysfunction (hypertensive heart disease) but no HF. Among HFpEF patients, clinical, echocardiographic, and biomarker correlates of left ventricular strain were determined.ResultsThe HFpEF patients had preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and evidence of diastolic dysfunction. Compared to both normal controls and hypertensive heart disease patients, the HFpEF patients demonstrated significantly lower longitudinal strain (LS) (-20.0 ± 2.1 and -17.07 ± 2.04 vs. -14.6 ± 3.3, respectively, p < 0.0001 for both) and circumferential strain (CS) (-27.1 ± 3.1 and -30.1 ± 3.5 vs. -22.9 ± 5.9, respectively; p < 0.0001 for both). In HFpEF, both LS and CS were related to LVEF (LS, R = -0.46; p < 0.0001; CS, R = -0.51; p < 0.0001) but not to standard echocardiographic measures of diastolic function (E' or E/E'). Lower LS was modestly associated with higher NT-proBNP, even after adjustment for 10 baseline covariates including LVEF, measures of diastolic function, and LV filling pressure (multivariable adjusted p = 0.001).ConclusionsStrain imaging detects impaired systolic function despite preserved global LVEF in HFpEF that may contribute to the pathophysiology of the HFpEF syndrome. (LCZ696 Compared to Valsartan in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Preserved Left-ventricular Ejection Fraction; NCT00887588).

Project description:Importance:Lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels are associated with poor outcomes in patients with heart failure. Less is known about this association in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Objective:To determine the associations of SBP levels with mortality and other outcomes in HFpEF. Design, Setting, and Participants:A propensity score-matched observational study of the Medicare-linked Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF) registry included 25 354 patients who were discharged alive; 8873 (35.0%) had an ejection fraction of at least 50%, and of these, 3915 (44.1%) had stable SBP levels (≤20 mm Hg admission to discharge variation). Data were collected from 259 hospitals in 48 states between March 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004. Data were analyzed from March 1, 2003, to December 31, 2008. Exposure:Discharge SBP levels less than 120 mm Hg. A total of 1076 of 3915 (27.5%) had SBP levels less than 120 mm Hg, of whom 901 (83.7%) were matched by propensity scores with 901 patients with SBP levels of 120 mm Hg or greater who were balanced on 58 baseline characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures:Thirty-day, 1-year, and overall all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission through December 31, 2008. Results:The 1802 matched patients had a mean (SD) age of 79 (10) years; 1147 (63.7%) were women, and 134 (7.4%) were African American. Thirty-day all-cause mortality occurred in 91 (10%) and 45 (5%) of matched patients with discharge SBP of less than 120 mm Hg vs 120 mm Hg or greater, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.45-2.95; P < .001). Systolic blood pressure level less than 120 mm Hg was also associated with a higher risk of mortality at 1 year (39% vs 31%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.16-1.59; P < .001) and during a median follow-up of 2.1 (overall 6) years (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.30; P = .005). Systolic blood pressure level less than 120 mm Hg was associated with a higher risk of heart failure readmission at 30 days (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-2.01; P = .02) but not at 1 or 6 years. Hazard ratios for the combined end point of heart failure readmission or all-cause mortality associated with SBP level less than 120 mm at 30 days, 1 year, and overall were 1.71 (95% CI, 1.34-2.18; P < .001), 1.21 (95% CI, 1.07-1.38; P = .004), and 1.12 (95% CI, 1.01-1.24; P = .03), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance:Among hospitalized patients with HFpEF, an SBP level less than 120 mm Hg is significantly associated with poor outcomes. Future studies need to prospectively evaluate optimal SBP treatment goals in patients with HFpEF.

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend targeting systolic blood pressure (SBP) <130 mm Hg in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with limited data.ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the optimal achieved SBP and whether the treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan on outcomes are related to BP lowering, particularly among women who derive greater benefit from sacubitril/valsartan.MethodsUsing 4,795 trial participants, this study related baseline and time-updated mean achieved SBP quartiles (<120, 120 to 129, 130 to 139, ≥140 mm Hg) to the primary outcome (cardiovascular death and total heart failure hospitalization), its components, myocardial infarction or stroke, and a renal composite outcome. At the 16-week visit, the study assessed the relationship between SBP change and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score (KCCQ-OSS) and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). The study analyzed whether the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan accounted for its treatment effects.ResultsAverage age was 73 ± 8 years, and 52% of participants were women. After multivariable adjustment, baseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg demonstrated the lowest risk for all outcomes. Sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP by 5.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval: 4.4 to 6.0) compared with valsartan at 4 weeks, which was not modified by baseline SBP. However, sacubitril/valsartan reduced SBP more in women (6.3 mm Hg) than men (4.0 mm Hg) (interaction p = 0.005). Change in SBP was directly associated with change in NT-proBNP (p < 0.001) but not KCCQ-OSS (p = 0.40). The association between sacubitril/valsartan and the primary outcome was not modified by baseline SBP (interaction p = 0.50) and was similar when adjusting for time-updated SBP, regardless of sex.ConclusionsBaseline and mean achieved SBP of 120 to 129 mm Hg identified the lowest risk patients with HFpEF. Baseline SBP did not modify the treatment effect of sacubitril/valsartan, and the BP-lowering effects of sacubitril/valsartan did not account for its effects on outcomes, regardless of sex. (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in HF With Preserved Ejection Fraction [PARAGON-HF]; NCT01920711).

Project description:ImportanceEndurance exercise is effective in improving peak oxygen consumption (peak V̇o2) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, it remains unknown whether differing modes of exercise have different effects.ObjectiveTo determine whether high-intensity interval training, moderate continuous training, and guideline-based advice on physical activity have different effects on change in peak V̇o2 in patients with HFpEF.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial at 5 sites (Berlin, Leipzig, and Munich, Germany; Antwerp, Belgium; and Trondheim, Norway) from July 2014 to September 2018. From 532 screened patients, 180 sedentary patients with chronic, stable HFpEF were enrolled. Outcomes were analyzed by core laboratories blinded to treatment groups; however, the patients and staff conducting the evaluations were not blinded.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1:1; n = 60 per group) to high-intensity interval training (3 × 38 minutes/week), moderate continuous training (5 × 40 minutes/week), or guideline control (1-time advice on physical activity according to guidelines) for 12 months (3 months in clinic followed by 9 months telemedically supervised home-based exercise).Main outcomes and measuresPrimary end point was change in peak V̇o2 after 3 months, with the minimal clinically important difference set at 2.5 mL/kg/min. Secondary end points included changes in metrics of cardiorespiratory fitness, diastolic function, and natriuretic peptides after 3 and 12 months.ResultsAmong 180 patients who were randomized (mean age, 70 years; 120 women [67%]), 166 (92%) and 154 (86%) completed evaluation at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Change in peak V̇o2 over 3 months for high-intensity interval training vs guideline control was 1.1 vs -0.6 mL/kg/min (difference, 1.5 [95% CI, 0.4 to 2.7]); for moderate continuous training vs guideline control, 1.6 vs -0.6 mL/kg/min (difference, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.9 to 3.1]); and for high-intensity interval training vs moderate continuous training, 1.1 vs 1.6 mL/kg/min (difference, -0.4 [95% CI, -1.4 to 0.6]). No comparisons were statistically significant after 12 months. There were no significant changes in diastolic function or natriuretic peptides. Acute coronary syndrome was recorded in 4 high-intensity interval training patients (7%), 3 moderate continuous training patients (5%), and 5 guideline control patients (8%).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with HFpEF, there was no statistically significant difference in change in peak V̇o2 at 3 months between those assigned to high-intensity interval vs moderate continuous training, and neither group met the prespecified minimal clinically important difference compared with the guideline control. These findings do not support either high-intensity interval training or moderate continuous training compared with guideline-based physical activity for patients with HFpEF.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02078947.

Dataset Information

Vasodilation and Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure after One Session of High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Publications

Vasodilation and Reduction of Systolic Blood Pressure after One Session of High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets