Search

Aims In heart failure (HF), exercise training programmes (ETPs) are a well-recognized intervention to improve symptoms, but are still poorly implemented. The Heart Failure Association promoted a survey to investigate whether and how cardiac centres in Europe are using ETPs in their HF patients. Methods and results The co-ordinators of the HF working groups of the countries affiliated to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) distributed and promoted the 12-item web-based questionnaire in the key cardiac centres of their countries. Forty-one country co-ordinators out of the 46 contacted replied to our questionnaire (89%). This accounted for 170 cardiac centres, responsible for 77 214 HF patients. The majority of the participating centres (82%) were general cardiology units and the rest were specialized rehabilitation units or local health centres. Sixty-seven (40%) centres [responsible for 36 385 (48%) patients] did not implement an ETP. This was mainly attributed to the lack of resources (25%), largely due to lack of staff or lack of financial provision. The lack of a national or local pathway for such a programme was the reason in 13% of the cases, and in 12% the perceived lack of evidence on safety or benefit was cited. When implemented, an ETP was proposed to all HF patients in only 55% of the centres, with restriction according to severity or aetiology. Conclusions With respect to previous surveys, there is evidence of increased availability of ETPs in HF in Europe, although too many patients are still denied a highly recommended therapy, mainly due to lack of resources or logistics.

Background Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation increases peak oxygen uptake (peak VO2), which is an important predictor of mortality in cardiac patients. However, it remains unclear which exercise characteristics are most effective for improving peak VO2 in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. Proof of concept papers comparing Aerobic Interval Training (AIT) and Moderate Continuous Training (MCT) were conducted in small sample sizes and findings were inconsistent and heterogeneous. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effects of AIT and Aerobic Continuous Training (ACT) on peak VO2, peripheral endothelial function, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life and safety, in a large multicentre study. Methods Two-hundred CAD patients (LVEF > 40%, 90% men, mean age 58.4 ± 9.1 years) were randomized to a supervised 12-week cardiac rehabilitation programme of three weekly sessions of either AIT (90–95% of peak heart rate (HR)) or ACT (70–75% of peak HR) on a bicycle. Primary outcome was peak VO2; secondary outcomes were peripheral endothelial function, cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life and safety. Results Peak VO2 (ml/kg/min) increased significantly in both groups (AIT 22.7 ± 17.6% versus ACT 20.3 ± 15.3%; p-time < 0.001). In addition, flow-mediated dilation (AIT +34.1% (range –69.8 to 646%) versus ACT +7.14% (range –66.7 to 503%); p-time < 0.001) quality of life and some other cardiovascular risk factors including resting diastolic blood pressure and HDL-C improved significantly after training. Improvements were equal for both training interventions. Conclusions Contrary to earlier smaller trials, we observed similar improvements in exercise capacity and peripheral endothelial function following AIT and ACT in a large population of CAD patients.KeywordsExercise intensity, Training modality, Coronary artery disease, Secondary preventionCardiac rehabilitationEndothelial function

In a previous paper, as the first of a series of three on the importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity (PA) and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health within the general population, we concluded that, in the population at large, PA and aerobic exercise capacity clearly are inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and that a dose–response curve on cardiovascular outcome has been demonstrated in most studies. More and more evidence is accumulated that engaging in regular PA and exercise interventions are essential components for reducing the severity of cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity and abdominal fat, high BP, metabolic risk factors, and systemic inflammation. However, it is less clear whether and which type of PA and exercise intervention (aerobic exercise, dynamic resistive exercise, or both) or characteristic of exercise (frequency, intensity, time or duration, and volume) would yield more benefit for each separate risk factor. The present paper, therefore, will review and make recommendations for PA and exercise training in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. The guidance offered in this series of papers is aimed at medical doctors, health practitioners, kinesiologists, physiotherapists and exercise physiologists, politicians, public health policy makers, and individual members of the public. Based on previous and the current literature overviews, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding type, volume, and intensity of PA and regarding appropriate risk evaluation during exercise in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors.

In a previous paper, as the first of a series of three on the importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity (PA) and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health within the general population, we concluded that, in the population at large, PA and aerobic exercise capacity clearly are inversely associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and that a dose–response curve on cardiovascular outcome has been demonstrated in most studies. More and more evidence is accumulated that engaging in regular PA and exercise interventions are essential components for reducing the severity of cardiovascular risk factors, such as obesity and abdominal fat, high BP, metabolic risk factors, and systemic inflammation. However, it is less clear whether and which type of PA and exercise intervention (aerobic exercise, dynamic resistive exercise, or both) or characteristic of exercise (frequency, intensity, time or duration, and volume) would yield more benefit for each separate risk factor. The present paper, therefore, will review and make recommendations for PA and exercise training in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors. The guidance offered in this series of papers is aimed at medical doctors, health practitioners, kinesiologists, physiotherapists and exercise physiologists, politicians, public health policy makers, and individual members of the public. Based on previous and the current literature overviews, recommendations from the European Association on Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation are formulated regarding type, volume, and intensity of PA and regarding appropriate risk evaluation during exercise in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors.