MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399677971 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwae175.151

Long-term effects of exercise training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction - a follow-up study of two randomised controlled trials

2024· article· en· W4399677971 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Fegers‐Wustrow, S Maderthaner, Mark J. Haykowsky, J Treitschke, Andreas B. Gevaert, Ephraim B. Winzer, Frank Edelmann, Rolf Wachter, Volker Adams, E Van Craenenbroeck, Burkert Pieske, Martin Halle, Stephan Mueller

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureEjection fractionPhysical therapyRandomized controlled trialVO2 maxHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionClinical endpointClinical trialAerobic exerciseInternal medicineHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Exercise training (ET) is an effective therapy to improve peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). However, it remains unknown if such an intervention has a sustainable effect beyond the active study period. Purpose To investigate peakV̇O2 in the long-term period after completing a one-year ET intervention in HFpEF. Methods This is a long-term follow-up (FU) study of patients enrolled in the OptimEx-Clin or Ex-DHF trial, the two largest randomised controlled trials of ET over one year in HFpEF. In the OptimEx-Clin trial, 180 patients (mean age: 70 years; 67% women) with HFpEF were randomised to high-intensity interval training, moderate continuous training or usual care (UC). In the Ex-DHF trial, 322 patients (mean age: 70 years; 60% women) were randomised to endurance plus resistance training or UC. All patients who were randomised in one centre and completed the respective trial were contacted to participate in this FU. Baseline assessments were conducted between May 2013 and April 2017 with the last active study visit in May 2018. Patients were reassessed for FU between December 2021 and August 2022. Primary endpoint was the absolute change in peakV̇O2 between the baseline and FU visit. All exercise and both control groups were combined into one ET and one UC group. PeakV̇O2 was assessed during symptom-limited cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) on a cycle ergometer at baseline, 3, 6, 12 months and at FU. PeakV̇O2 was defined as the highest 30-second average within the last minute of CPET. Statistical analyses were performed using dependent and independent t-tests with α = 0.05. Results Among 142 initially randomised patients, 75 were recruited for FU and 67 (40 ET; 27 UC) had available CPET data both at baseline and FU (75% women; mean [SD] age at baseline: 66±7 years). Mean time between baseline and FU was 6.3 ± 1.3 and 6.6 ± 0.8 years in the ET and UC groups, respectively. During the active study phase, ET patients significantly increased peakV̇O2 from baseline to 3, 6 and 12 months (mean change [95% CI]: 1.5 [0.6 to 2.3], 1.5: [0.5 to 2.4] and 1.4: [0.3 to 2.5] mL/kg/min, respectively; Fig. 1). However, a statistically significant difference between groups was only observed at 3 months (P=0.03). The change in peakV̇O2 from baseline to FU was not significantly different between both groups (ET: -2.7 ± 3.3 mL/kg/min; UC: -2.5 ± 3.6 mL/kg/min; P=0.87) (Fig. 1). Finally, between 12 months and FU, change in peakV̇O2 was -4.2 ± 3.6 mL/kg/min for ET, and -3.4 ± 3.3 mL/kg/min for UC patients (P=0.35). Conclusions While patients with HFpEF had significantly improved peakV̇O2 between 3 and 12 months of ET (~1.5 mL/kg/min), these effects were not sustainable beyond the active study period. This finding highlights the importance of incorporating behavioural strategies to ensure long-term adherence to ET is maintained for optimal benefits in peakV̇O2 over time. Change in peakV̇O2 (mean and 95% CI)

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207