ABSTRACT
Cirrhosis patients have reduced peak aerobic power (peak VO2) that is associated with reduced survival. Supervised exercise training increases exercise tolerance. The effect of home-based exercise training (HET) in cirrhosis is unknown. The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 8 weeks of HET on peak VO2, 6-minute walk distance (6MWD), muscle mass, and quality of life in cirrhosis. Random assignment to 8 weeks of HET (moderate to high intensity cycling exercise, 3 days/week) or usual care. Exercise adherence defined as completing ≥80% training sessions. Paired t-tests and analysis of covariance used for comparisons. Forty patients enrolled: 58% male, mean age 57 y, 70% Child Pugh-A. Between group increases in peak VO2 (1.7, 95% CI: -0.33 to 3.7 ml/kg/min, p = 0.09) and 6MWD (33.7, 95% CI: 5.1 to 62.4 m, p = 0.02) were greater after HET versus usual care. Improvements even more marked in adherent subjects for peak VO2 (2.8, 95% CI: 0.5-5.2 mL/kg/min, p = 0.02) and 6MWD (46.4, 95% CI: 12.4-80.5 m, p = 0.009). No adverse events occurred during testing or HET. Eight weeks of HET is a safe and effective intervention to improve exercise capacity in cirrhosis, with maximal benefits occurring in those who complete ≥80% of the program.
Subject(s)
Exercise Tolerance , Exercise , Liver Cirrhosis/epidemiology , Adult , Comorbidity , Exercise Therapy/adverse effects , Exercise Therapy/methods , Female , Humans , Liver Cirrhosis/diagnosis , Liver Cirrhosis/therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Severity of Illness Index , Treatment Adherence and ComplianceABSTRACT
It is unknown if vigorous to maximal aerobic interval training (INT) is more effective than traditionally prescribed moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MCT) for improving peak oxygen uptake (Vo2) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science were searched using the following keywords: "heart failure," high-intensity interval exercise," "high-intensity interval training," "aerobic interval training," and "high-intensity aerobic interval training." Seven randomized trials were identified comparing the effects of INT and MCT on peak Vo2, 5 of which measured the LVEF at rest. The trials included clinically stable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction with impaired left ventricular systolic function (mean LVEF 32%) who were relatively young (mean age 61 years) and predominantly men (82%). Weighted mean differences were calculated using a random-effects model. INT led to significantly higher increases in peak Vo2 compared with MCT (INT vs MCT, weighted mean difference 2.14 ml O2/kg/min, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 3.63). Comparison of the effects of INT and MCT on the LVEF at rest was inconclusive (INT vs MCT, weighted mean difference 3.29%, 95% confidence interval -0.7% to 7.28%). In conclusion, in clinically stable patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, INT is more effective than MCT for improving peak Vo2 but not the LVEF at rest.
