Abstract
Background
An important component of secondary prevention of CVD (including HF) is comprehensive cardiac rehab, including exercise. Novel, individualised approaches are needed to increase uptake and adherence to exercise programmes, one area offering potential is HIIT. HIIT has been shown to be both safe and effective for improving cardiovascular fitness in both coronary artery disease and HF patients.
Objectives
To provide a current and up to date evaluation of the physiological and psychological outcomes of HIIT in patients with HF compared to MCT and UC. Secondly to perform sub-group analyses comparing short and long HIIT protocols.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was undertaken. Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and SportDISCUS were searched up to July 2022. Trials were included if they carried out a HIIT intervention (defined at intensity ≥ 80% peak HR or ≥ 80% VO2peak) in HF patients (HFpEF or HFrEF) for at least 6 weeks. Comparator group was UC or MCT.
Results
HIIT was shown to be superior to MCT and UC for improving VO2peak (HIIT mean improvement 3.1 mL.kg−1min−1). HITT was superior to MCT and UC for improving LVEF (HIIT mean improvement 5.7%). HIIT was superior to MCT and UC for improving HRQoL, using the MLHFQ (HIIT mean point change of -12.8). Subgroup analysis showed no difference between long and short HIIT.
An important component of secondary prevention of CVD (including HF) is comprehensive cardiac rehab, including exercise. Novel, individualised approaches are needed to increase uptake and adherence to exercise programmes, one area offering potential is HIIT. HIIT has been shown to be both safe and effective for improving cardiovascular fitness in both coronary artery disease and HF patients.
Objectives
To provide a current and up to date evaluation of the physiological and psychological outcomes of HIIT in patients with HF compared to MCT and UC. Secondly to perform sub-group analyses comparing short and long HIIT protocols.
Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials was undertaken. Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and SportDISCUS were searched up to July 2022. Trials were included if they carried out a HIIT intervention (defined at intensity ≥ 80% peak HR or ≥ 80% VO2peak) in HF patients (HFpEF or HFrEF) for at least 6 weeks. Comparator group was UC or MCT.
Results
HIIT was shown to be superior to MCT and UC for improving VO2peak (HIIT mean improvement 3.1 mL.kg−1min−1). HITT was superior to MCT and UC for improving LVEF (HIIT mean improvement 5.7%). HIIT was superior to MCT and UC for improving HRQoL, using the MLHFQ (HIIT mean point change of -12.8). Subgroup analysis showed no difference between long and short HIIT.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 117-127 |
| Number of pages | 10 |
| Journal | Heart & Lung |
| Volume | 64 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Mar 2024 |