Physiological and psychological outcomes of high intensity interval training in patients with heart failure compared to moderate continuous training and usual care: A systematic review with meta analysis.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
PubMed 38159428 · doi:10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.12.002
What was done
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed by searching Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, and SportDISCUS up to July 2022. The review included trials evaluating high-intensity interval training (HIIT; defined as intensity ≥ 80% peak heart rate or ≥ 80% peak VO2 for at least 6 weeks) compared to moderate continuous training (MCT) or usual care (UC) in patients with heart failure (HFpEF or HFrEF). Subgroup analyses compared short and long HIIT protocols.
What was found
HIIT was reported as superior to MCT and UC across evaluated outcomes: - Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak): HIIT mean improvement was 3.1 mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹. - Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF): HIIT mean improvement was 5.7%. - Health-related quality of life (MLHFQ): HIIT mean point change was -12.8. Subgroup analysis found no difference between short and long HIIT protocols. The abstract did not report confidence intervals, p-values, or baseline-to-comparator contrast values.
Why it matters
This review indicates that HIIT can offer greater physiological and quality-of-life improvements than traditional moderate continuous training or usual care in heart failure rehabilitation, with benefits maintained regardless of interval protocol length.
Limits
The abstract does not state the number of included studies or total sample size. It omits confidence intervals, p-values, adverse event rates, and separated outcomes for HFpEF versus HFrEF populations. Hard clinical endpoints such as mortality and hospitalizations were not reported.
Cited by
- supports Most forms of heart failure respond positively to high-intensity exercise training.