Revista portuguesa de cardiologia : orgao oficial da Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia = Portuguese journal of cardiology : an official journal of the Portuguese Society of Cardiology · 2025
Exercise intensity prescription in heart failure: A comparison of different physiological parameters.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sá Couto David, Lopes Inês, Oliveira Maria Isilda, Schmidt Cristine, Magalhães Sandra, Dores Hélder, Ribeiro Fernando, Santos Mário
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Aerobic exercise intensity prescription is critical for the efficacy and safety of heart failure (HF) patients' rehabilitation programs. This study aims to compare some of the commonly used parameters for range-based exercise intensity prescription, with a ventilatory threshold-based approach.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 163 HF patients across a left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) spectrum who underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). We measured percentages of peak oxygen uptake (VO2), peak heart rate (HR) and heart rate reserve (HRR) at the first ventilatory threshold (VT1). We compared the classification within the different exercise intensity (EI) domains defined by the current guidelines.
RESULTS: VT1 was observed at 82±10% of peak HR, 54±25% of HRR and 54±17% of peak VO2, corresponding to the high intensity for % Peak HR, and moderate intensity domain for %HRR and % Peak VO2. Using % Peak VO2, 65% of the patients were accurately classified within the correct EI domain (moderate intensity) at VT1; however, this percentage dropped to 46% when employing %HRR and to 25% when using % Peak HR. The classification accuracy at VT1 was superior in patients with reduced LVEF and in those with higher exercise capacity.
CONCLUSION: Our data show that EI will be misclassified in one out of three patients if guided by current guideline-recommended range-based parameters, which emphasizes the relevance of a ventilatory threshold-based approach to adequate exercise prescription in HF patients.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 163 HF patients across a left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) spectrum who underwent maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). We measured percentages of peak oxygen uptake (VO2), peak heart rate (HR) and heart rate reserve (HRR) at the first ventilatory threshold (VT1). We compared the classification within the different exercise intensity (EI) domains defined by the current guidelines.
RESULTS: VT1 was observed at 82±10% of peak HR, 54±25% of HRR and 54±17% of peak VO2, corresponding to the high intensity for % Peak HR, and moderate intensity domain for %HRR and % Peak VO2. Using % Peak VO2, 65% of the patients were accurately classified within the correct EI domain (moderate intensity) at VT1; however, this percentage dropped to 46% when employing %HRR and to 25% when using % Peak HR. The classification accuracy at VT1 was superior in patients with reduced LVEF and in those with higher exercise capacity.
CONCLUSION: Our data show that EI will be misclassified in one out of three patients if guided by current guideline-recommended range-based parameters, which emphasizes the relevance of a ventilatory threshold-based approach to adequate exercise prescription in HF patients.