RESUMO
Abstract Introduction: Heart transplantation (HTx) is the gold standard procedure for selected individuals with refractory heart failure. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is safe and allows patients to exercise in high intensity for longer time when compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis about the effect of HIIT compared to MICT on exercise capacity, peak heart rate, and heart rate reserve in HTx recipients. Secondarily, we pooled data comparing MICT and no exercise training in these patients. Methods: This systematic review followed the standardization of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We presented the treatment effects of HIIT on the outcomes of interest as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method. Results: HIIT improved peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2) (MD = 2.1; 95% CI 1.1, 3.1; P<0.0001), peak heart rate (MD = 3.4; 95% CI 0.8, 5.9; P=0.009), and heart rate reserve (MD = 4.8; 95% CI -0.05, 9.6; P=0.05) compared to MICT. Improvements on peakVO2 (MD = 3.5; 95% CI 2.3, 4.7; P<0.00001) and peak heart rate (MD = 5.6; 95% CI 1.6, 9.6; P=0.006) were found comparing HIIT and no exercise training. Conclusion: Current available evidence suggests that HIIT leads to improvements on peakVO2, peak heart rate, and heart rate reserve compared to MICT in HTx recipients. However, the superiority of HIIT should be tested in isocaloric protocols.
Assuntos
Humanos , Transplante de Coração , Treinamento Intervalado de Alta Intensidade , Exercício Físico , Tolerância ao Exercício , Frequência CardíacaRESUMO
The prevalence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is about 30-75% of the patients living with heart failure. A hallmark symptom of these patients is exercise intolerance. Ivabradine can, eventually, increase exercise capacity by heart rate control. However, clinical trials show conflicting results about the effects of ivabradine on exercise capacity, an important prognostic variable. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of ivabradine on exercise capacity in individuals with HFpEF. This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and supplemented by guidance from the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. For the meta-analysis, a forest plot was used to graphically present the effect sizes and the 95% CIs. Four randomized controlled trials were included. Ivabradine did not change exercise capacity expressed by peak VO2 and 6MWT (MD = 0.8; 95% CI - 2.5 to 4.3; P = 0.62) (Fig. 4a). In our secondary analysis, the ivabradine group showed a significant resting HR reduction when compared with placebo (MD = - 13.2; 95% CI - 16.6 to -9.8; P < 0.00001) and ivabradine showed increased values of E/e' ratio compared with placebo (MD = 0.8; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.6; P = 0.04). Current available evidence suggests that there is no effect of ivabradine on exercise capacity in patients with HFpEF. Also, questions about negative effects on E/e' values and adverse events associated with ivabradine treatment need to be considered in future studies.
Assuntos
Insuficiência Cardíaca , Tolerância ao Exercício , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Frequência Cardíaca , Humanos , Ivabradina , Volume SistólicoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Heart transplantation (HTx) is the gold standard procedure for selected individuals with refractory heart failure. Highintensity interval training (HIIT) is safe and allows patients to exercise in high intensity for longer time when compared to moderateintensity continuous training (MICT). The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis about the effect of HIIT compared to MICT on exercise capacity, peak heart rate, and heart rate reserve in HTx recipients. Secondarily, we pooled data comparing MICT and no exercise training in these patients. METHODS: This systematic review followed the standardization of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses statement and the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. We presented the treatment effects of HIIT on the outcomes of interest as mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Metaanalysis was performed using the random-effects, generic inverse variance method. RESULTS: HIIT improved peak oxygen consumption (peakVO2) (MD = 2.1; 95% CI 1.1, 3.1; P<0.0001), peak heart rate (MD = 3.4; 95% CI 0.8, 5.9; P=0.009), and heart rate reserve (MD = 4.8; 95% CI -0.05, 9.6; P=0.05) compared to MICT. Improvements on peakVO2 (MD = 3.5; 95% CI 2.3, 4.7; P<0.00001) and peak heart rate (MD = 5.6; 95% CI 1.6, 9.6; P=0.006) were found comparing HIIT and no exercise training. CONCLUSION: Current available evidence suggests that HIIT leads to improvements on peakVO2, peak heart rate, and heart rate reserve compared to MICT in HTx recipients. However, the superiority of HIIT should be tested in isocaloric protocols.