Effects of high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shengyuan Gu; Xinchao Du; Dongwei Wang; Yaohua Yu; Shifang Guo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0290362

. 2023 Aug 17;18(8):e0290362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290362

Effects of high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shengyuan Gu ¹, Xinchao Du ^1,^*, Dongwei Wang ², Yaohua Yu ³, Shifang Guo ³

Editor: Ahmed Mustafa Rashid⁴

PMCID: PMC10434865 PMID: 37590312

Abstract

Introduction and aims

High intensity interval training (HIIT) is considered as an alternative exercise modality to moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) for heart failure (HF) patients. Yet a growing number of trials demonstrated inconsistent findings about the effectiveness of HIIT versus MICT until SMARTEX study and OptimEx-Clin study have made a consistent negative conclusion that HIIT was not superior to MICT. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis involving a subgroup analysis of total exercise time (TET) and disease categories of HF to investigate if TET could affect the superiority of HIIT when compared with MICT.

Methods and results

An electronic literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for this review. 16 studies of 661 patients were finally pooled into quantitative synthesis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) and standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for quantitative synthesis of outcomes. HIIT was superior to MICT in improving peak oxygen consumption (Peak VO₂) (WMD: 1.68 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.81 to 2.55 n = 661). The subgroup analysis of TET showed that HIIT was superior to MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “short time” subgroup (WMD: 1.61 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.77 n = 166) and in “medium time” subgroup (WMD: 1.74 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.53 to 2.95 n = 420), and that there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “long time” subgroup (WMD: 0.62 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.58 n = 75).

Conclusions

The superiority of HIIT to MICT in improving Peak VO₂ arose in a short to medium length of TET whereas it was effaced by an increment of TET. This “paradox” of TET on HIIT versus MICT might be due to the increasing poor adherence to target exercise intensity over time.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022375076.

1. Introduction

Heart failure (HF) is a common, disabling, and deadly disease with a prevalence about 40 million people worldwide and it leads to a poor quality of life (QoL) under the numerous symptoms including shortness of breath, weakness and peripheral edema due to the stiffness or weakness of the heart muscle. In general, the global incidence of HF ranges from 100 to 900 cases per 100,000 person-years and the estimates of HF prevalence of developed countries range from 1–2% of the adult population. HF contributes to the increasing mortality and hospitalization, which becomes a heavy burden to healthcare and society. Hospitalization of HF represents 1–2% of all hospital admissions. Of note, high-income countries, which constitute only 18% of the global population, have contributed to 86% of the worldwide expenditure for HF. A study published in 2014 estimated that the global expenditure of 2012 for HF was 108 billion dollars, of which 60% was spent directly on medical costs [1–3].

Exercise training (ET) is beneficial to HF patients besides the optimal medical therapy [4–6], and moderate intensity continuous training (MICT) is regarded as the standard exercise modality for patients with HF in ET programs [7]. Recently, high intensity interval training (HIIT) is considered as an alternative exercise modality to MICT for HF patients [8–10]. However, it remains unknown which one of the HIIT and MICT is the optimal training modality for HF Patients, and thus a growing number of randomized trials were designed to compare the effectiveness of HIIT versus MICT on HF patients [11]. Yet the findings keep inconsistent until the multicenter large sample studies, SMARTEX Heart Failure study [7] and OptimEx-Clin study [9], have been published. SMARTEX Heart Failure study on patients of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) reported that HIIT was not superior to MICT in changing aerobic capacity, meanwhile OptimEx-Clin study on patients of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) concluded that there was no statistically significant difference in change of peak oxygen consumption (Peak VO₂) at 3 months between HIIT and MICT. As if the results of the two studies would calm down the different sounds about the effectiveness of HIIT versus MICT. Of note, both of the two studies have referred to the attenuation in adherence to target exercise intensity or exercise protocols and expressed the concern that poor adherence might affect the results. Thus, in order to make it clear if an “overlong” exercise time, through the attenuation in adherence which might get more serious over time, has indirectly affected these “negative” results, a meta-analysis involving a subgroup analysis of exercise time becomes necessary. As we all know, training duration should not completely represent the real exercise time, for example, a shorter training duration might have a longer total exercise time (TET). A regular exercise prescription defines a duration only by days, weeks or months, but seldom by minutes. While TET, which is defined by the volume of time of total exercise session and calculated by minutes, provides a more comprehensive measure than duration, when estimating the training effectiveness which was produced through exercise intensity and total exercise time rather than through exercise intensity and exercise duration. Thus, from our perspective, it seems better to conduct a subgroup meta-analysis by gathering studies with similar TET together than with similar training duration, when estimating the effectiveness of HIIT versus MICT. Moreover, Ismail et al. [12] have reported that TET may be a confounder in their meta-analysis in regard to the cardiovascular responses to different exercise training in HF patients. However, the effect of TET on HIIT versus MICT has never been investigated in meta-analysis involving HF patients.

As is well known, HF is divided into two groups by left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), including HFrEF and HFpEF. Although these two disease entities have several same symptoms, their etiological and epidemiological profiles still differ with each other [13, 14]. Thus, it is necessary to conduct a subgroup analysis when a systematic review of HF is performed. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is recommended by guidelines to assess overall cardiovascular health and performance [7]. Besides, Peak VO₂ and the minute ventilation to carbon dioxide production slope (VE/VCO₂ slope) are defined as the key variables of CPET, and Peak VO₂ is the best variable to assess physical fitness [15, 16]. As a patient-centered outcome, QoL is also an important endpoint in assessment of effects of ET [17].

Taking all those discussed above into account, this study aimed at conducting a meta-analysis assessing the effects of HIIT versus MICT on Peak VO₂, VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL in HF patients and involving a subgroup analysis of TET and disease categories of HF, in order to investigate if TET could affect the superiority of HIIT when compared with MICT.

1.1. Review question

Has an “overlong” exercise time, through the attenuation in adherence which might get more serious over time, indirectly contributed to no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in change of Peak VO₂?

1.2. Eligibility criteria

This systematic review included studies on the effects of HIIT compared to MICT in HF patients. To be eligible, the trial had to include patients with HF randomized to either to HIIT or MICT.

The inclusion criteria were as follows: a) including adult patients (aged ≥18 years); b) a randomized controlled trial. The exclusion criteria were as follows: a) articles in non-English; b) not being high versus moderate intensity at the interval training group and the continuous training group; c) lack of primary outcome; d) data of primary outcome not available or complete; e) data from the same trial. The primary outcome of interest was Peak VO₂ and the other outcomes were VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL.

2. Methods

This meta-analysis was registered on the PROSPERO website and performed under the recommendations of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [18].

2.1. Search strategy

A systematic literature search of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov (from the earliest date available to November 2022) was performed independently by two reviewers. Three groups of keywords including the medical subject headings and their related terms were combined for searching (as shown in S1 File).

2.2. Screening and selection

After duplicates removed, two independent reviewers screened all titles and abstracts to identify potentially eligible studies that compared continuous training with interval training or HIIT in HF patients. And then the articles were retrieved for full text and independently assessed by the two reviewers if they met the criteria for eligibility. References of retrieved articles were checked manually for other potentially eligible studies. An advisory group, which consisted of the other three authors except the two independent reviewers, was set to solve any disagreement in the process of screening and selecting studies.

2.3. Critical appraisal

Methodological quality of included studies was independently assessed by two authors using the Cochrane risk of bias (Cochrane ROB) tool through the judgement of bias which includes selection bias of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, performance bias of blinding of participants and personnel, detection bias of blinding of outcome assessment, attrition bias of incomplete outcome data, reporting bias of selective reporting and other bias. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion with the advisory group.

2.4. Data extraction

The data was extracted independently by two reviewers using standard data extraction forms of Cochrane guidelines (Higgins and Green 2009) for the first author, publication year, country, characteristics of population, diagnosis of disease, LVEF, characteristics of intervention, outcomes at baseline and at the end of the follow-up of the supervised cardiac rehabilitation. If exercise time of per session was not reported directly in the article, it was calculated by the details of training protocol (including warm-up and cool-down). For continuous variables, results were expressed as the mean difference of the variable between randomized groups. Methods established by Luo et al. [19] and Wan et al. [20] were used to obtain the mean and standard deviation of the continuous data of Peak VO₂, VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL.

2.5. Data synthesis

We analyzed pooled studies in a random-effects model using the statistical method of Inverse Variance with Review Manager, and calculated the weighted mean difference (WMD) or standard mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was quantified with Review Manager using the I² statistic; I² values of 25%, 50%, and 75% represented low, moderate, and high heterogeneity, respectively. Sensitivity analyses were performed using the statistical method of meta-based Influence Analysis with STATA to assess the general effects after specific studies were omitted. A descriptive statistics analysis of TET, which included normality tests, percentiles distribution and frequency histogram, was conducted with SPSS for dividing groups of studies into “short time”, “medium time” and “long time”. Subgroup analyses of the TET and disease categories (HFrEF and HFpEF) were performed with Review Manager to assess part of potential source of heterogeneity. A funnel plot and contour-enhanced funnel plot were made with STATA to identify publication bias. A two-tailed P value lower than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Review Manager (Version 5.4), SPSS (Version 21.0) and STATA (Version 16.0) were the software used in the analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Study inclusion

459 articles were identified from the initial search of four databases. Out of the 459 studies, 199 duplicates were identified and another 232 studies were excluded after screening the title and abstract. Among the 232 studies, 46 were reviews; 21 were animal experiments; 1 was case report; 40 were conference abstracts without full text available; 57 were protocols; 17 were sub-studies; 1 was guideline; 1 was hypothesis; 48 were studies which did not meet the eligibility criteria obviously after screening the title and abstract. Then 28 articles were retrieved for eligibility, and 12 articles were excluded and 16 articles were included after the assessment of full text. Of the 12 articles, 1 was article in German; 2 lacked primary outcome; 1 lacked data of primary outcome; 3 had an equal exercise intensity in two groups; 5 had the same date derived from the same trial. The PRISMA flowchart shows the process of literature search and filtering (Fig 1).

3.2. Characteristics of included studies and methodological quality

Of the 16 trials [8, 10, 21–34], 661 patients were involved in this meta-analysis with a range from 53.2 [33] to 76.5 [34] years old in mean age. Three studies [10, 21, 25] involved patients of HFpEF while thirteen [8, 22–24, 26–34] recruited patients of HFrEF. The general characteristics of included studies are shown in Table 1. The characteristics of HIIT and MICT have been summarized in Table 2. Five studies [21–23, 27, 28] did not report directly the exercise time of per session. The results of the assessment of the risk of bias are presented in Fig 2.

Table 1. General characteristics of included studies.

Study	Year	Country	N, gender (male/female)	Mean age (year)	Diagnosis (NYHA)	LVEF (%)	Peak VO₂ at baseline (ml · kg^-1 · min^-1)
1 Angadi et al.	2015	America	HIIT: 9 M/F: 8/1	69 ± 6.1	NR	63.7 ± 6.4	19.2 ± 5.2
1 Angadi et al.			MICT: 6 M/F: 4/2	71.5 ± 11.7	NR	66.0 ± 4.7	16.9 ± 3.0
2 Benda et al.	2015	Netherlands	HIIT: 10 M/F: 9/1	63 ± 8	II/III: 8/2	37 ± 6	19.1 ± 4.1
2 Benda et al.			MICT: 10 M/F: 10/0	64 ± 8	II/III: 8/2	38 ± 6	21.0 ± 3.4
3 Besnier et al.	2019	France	HIIT: 16 M/F: 11/5	59 ± 13	I/II/III: 8/7/1	36 ± 8	17.2 ± 4.5
3 Besnier et al.			MICT: 15 M/F: 11/4	59.5 ± 12	I/II/III: 6/7/2	36 ± 7	15.0 ± 4.6
4 Dimopoulos et al.	2006	Greece	HIIT: 10 M/F: 9/1	59.2 ± 12.2	I/II/III: 3/6/1	34.5 ± 10.5	15.4 ± 4.7
4 Dimopoulos et al.			MICT: 14 M/F: 14/0	61.5 ± 7.1	I/II/III: 4/9/1	30.7 ± 10.3	15.5 ± 3.7
5 Donelli et al.	2020	Brazil	HIIT: 10 M/F: 3/7	60 ± 10	II/III: 8/2	65 ± 5	16.1 ± 3.3
5 Donelli et al.			MICT: 9 M/F: 4/5	60 ± 9	II/III: 8/1	65 ± 5	17.6 ± 3.5
6 Ellingsen et al.	2017	Norway	HIIT: 77 M/F: 63/14	65 ± 22.4	II/III: 55/22	29 ± 11.2	16.8 ± 4.5
6 Ellingsen et al.			MICT: 65 M/F: 53/12	60 ± 14.4	II/III: 41/24	29 ± 12.3	16.2 ± 7.0
7 Freyssin et al.	2012	France	HIIT: 12 M/F: 6/6	54 ± 9	NR	27.8 ± 4.7	10.7 ± 2.9
7 Freyssin et al.			MICT: 14 M/F: 7/7	55 ± 12	NR	30.7 ± 7.8	10.6 ± 4.1
8 Fu et al.	2013	Taiwan	HIIT: 15 M/F: 10/5	67.5 ± 1.8	NR	38.3 ± 3.5	16.0 ± 1.0
8 Fu et al.			MICT: 15 M/F: 9/6	66.3 ± 2.1	NR	38.6 ± 4.8	15.9 ± 0.7
9 Iellamo et al.	2013	Italy	HIIT: 8 M/F: NR	62.2 ± 8	NR	31.5 ± 6.9	18.8 ± 4.6
9 Iellamo et al.			MICT: 8 M/F: NR	62.6 ± 9	NR	32.8 ± 6.5	18.4 ± 4.3
10 Iellamo et al.	2014	Italy	HIIT: 18 M/F: 16/2	67.2 ± 6	I/II: 6/12	34.1 ± 6	15.3 ± 4
10 Iellamo et al.			MICT: 18 M/F: 15/3	68.4 ± 8	I/II: 8/10	35.6 ± 7	16.2 ± 5
Study	Year	Country	N, gender (male/female)	Mean age (year)	Diagnosis (NYHA)	LVEF (%)	Peak VO₂ at baseline (ml · kg^-1 · min^-1)
11 Koufaki et al.	2014	UK	HIIT: 16 M/F: 14/2	59.8 ± 7.4	NR	41.7 ± 10.3	14.6 ± 4.8
11 Koufaki et al.			MICT: 17 M/F: 13/4	59.7 ± 10.8	NR	35.2 ± 6.4	15.5 ± 15.9
12 Mueller et al.	2021	Germany	HIIT: 58 M/F: 17/41	70 ± 7	II/III: 44/14	NR	18.9 ± 5.4
12 Mueller et al.			MICT: 58 M/F: 23/35	70 ± 8	II/III: 44/14	NR	18.2 ± 5.1
13 Papathanasiou et al.	2020	Bulgaria	HIIT: 60 M/F: 35/25	63.7 ± 6.7	II/III: 48/12	35.9 ± 2.3	13.5 ± 3.8
13 Papathanasiou et al.			MICT: 60 M/F: 35/25	63.8 ± 6.7	II/III: 46/14	36.0 ± 2.0	12.5 ± 3.6
14 Roditis et al.	2007	Greece	HIIT: 11 M/F: 10/1	63 ± 2	I/II/III: 3/7/1	30.7 ± 10.3	14.2 ± 3.1
14 Roditis et al.			MICT: 10 M/F: 9/1	61 ± 3	I/II/III: 4/5/1	34.5 ± 10.5	15.3 ± 4.4
15 Ulbrich et al.	2016	Brazil	HIIT: 12 M/F: NR	53.2 ± 7.0	II/III: 11/1	35.4 ± 6.7	21.4 ± 4.1
15 Ulbrich et al.			MICT: 10 M/F: NR	54.0 ± 9.9	II: 10	32.8 ± 7.7	18.4 ± 4.3
16 Wisløff et al.	2007	Norway	HIIT: 9 M/F: 7/2	76.5 ± 9	NR	28.0 ± 7.3	13.0 ± 1.6
16 Wisløff et al.			MICT: 9 M/F: 7/2	74.4 ± 12	NR	32.8 ± 4.8	13.0 ± 1.1

Open in a new tab

NYHA: New York Heart Association functional class of heart failure ranging from I to Ⅳ; Peak VO₂: peak oxygen consumption; NR: not reported.

Table 2. Intervention characteristics of HIIT versus MICT in included studies.

Study	Type	Intensity	Exercise time per session (min)	Duration (week)	Total sessions	Total exercise time (min)
1 Angadi et al.	Running	HIIT: 1^st week: 4×2 min 80–85% PHR; 4×2 min 50% PHR 2^nd–4^th week: 4×4 min 85–90% PHR; 3×3 min 50% PHR	1^st week: 31^* 2^nd–4^th week: 40^*	4	12	453
1 Angadi et al.	Running	MICT: 1^st week: 60% PHR 2^nd–4^th week: 70% PHR	1^st week: 30^* 2^nd–4^th week: 45^*			495
2 Benda et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 10×1 min 90% Watt; 10×2.5 min 30% Watt	50^*	12	24	1200
2 Benda et al.	Cycling	MICT: 60–75% Watt	45^*			1080
3 Besnier et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 2×8 min interval training (8×0.5 min 100% PPO alternating with 8×0.5 min 50% PPO); 1×4 min passive recovery	30^*	3.5	18	540
3 Besnier et al.	Cycling	MICT: 60% PPO	40^*			720
4 Dimopoulos et al.	Cycling	HIIT: alternating 0.5 min 100% pWR with 0.5 min rest	40	12	36	1440
4 Dimopoulos et al.	Cycling	MICT: 50% pWR	40			1440
5 Donelli et al.	Running	HIIT: 4×4 min 80–90% Peak VO₂; Three intervals at 50–60% Peak VO₂	38	12	36	1368
5 Donelli et al.	Running	MICT: 50–60% Peak VO₂	47			1692
6 Ellingsen et al.	Running or Cycling	HIIT: 4×4 min 90%–95% PHR; 3×3 min 50–70% PHR	38	12	36	1368
6 Ellingsen et al.	Running or Cycling	MICT: 60%–70% PHR	47			1692
7 Freyssin et al.	Running or Cycling	HIIT: 1^st–4^th week: 3×12 repetitions of interval training (0.5 min 50% maximal power alternating with 1 min rest); 2×5 min rest 5^th–8^th week: 3×12 repetitions of interval training (0.5 min 100% maximal power alternating with 1 min rest); 2×5 min rest	28	8	48	1344
7 Freyssin et al.	Running or Cycling	MICT: HR at the VT1	60			2880
Study	Type	Intensity	Exercise time per session (min)	Duration (week)	Total sessions	Total exercise time (min)
8 Fu et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 5×3 min 80% Peak VO₂; 4×3 min 40% Peak VO₂	33^*	12	36	1188
8 Fu et al.	Cycling	MICT: 60% Peak VO₂	36^*			1296
9 Iellamo et al., 2013	Uphill walking	HIIT: 4×4 min 75–80% HRR; 4×3 min 50% HRR	Week 1–3, 3–6, 6–9, 9–12 23, 30, 37, 37	12	42	1407
9 Iellamo et al., 2013	Uphill walking	MICT: 45–60% HRR	30, 35, 40, 45			1650
10 Iellamo et al., 2014	Uphill walking	HIIT: 4×4 min 75–80% HRR; 4×3 min 45–50% HRR	48^*	12	36	1728
10 Iellamo et al., 2014	Uphill walking	MICT: 45–60% HRR	50–65^*			1800–2340
11 Koufaki et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 2×15 min cycling (1 min 20–30% PPO alternating with 0.5 min 100% PPO)	30–34	24	72	2160–2448
11 Koufaki et al.	Cycling	MICT: 40–60% Peak VO₂	27–40			1944–2880
12 Mueller et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 4×4 min 80%–90% HRR; 3×4 min active recovery	38	12	36	1368
12 Mueller et al.	Cycling	MICT: 35%–50% HRR	40		60	2400
13 Papathanasiou et al	Cycling	HIIT: three high intensity intervals at 90% HR_max; two moderate-intensity intervals at 70% HR_max	40	12	24	960
13 Papathanasiou et al	Cycling	MICT: 70% HR_max	40			960
14 Roditis et al.	Cycling	HIIT: 0.5min 100% pWR alternating with 0.5 min rest	40	12	36	1440
14 Roditis et al.	Cycling	MICT: 50% pWR	40			1440
15 Ulbrich et al.	Uphill walking or running	HIIT: 3-min intervals at 95% PHR interspersed by active recovery of 70% PHR	60	12	36	2160
15 Ulbrich et al.	Uphill walking or running	MICT: 75% PHR	60			2160
16 Wisløff et al.	Uphill walking	HIIT: 4×4 min 90–95% PHR; 3×3 min 50%–70% PHR	38	12	36	1368
16 Wisløff et al.	Uphill walking	MICT: 70–75% PHR	47			1692

Open in a new tab

*: exercise time calculated by the details of training protocol (including warm-up and cool-down); PHR: peak heart rate; Watt: maximal workload; PPO: peak power output; pWR: peak work rate; Peak VO₂: peak oxygen consumption; HR: heart rate; VT1: first ventilatory threshold; HRR: heart rate reserve; HR_max: maximum heart rate.

3.3. Empirical results

3.3.1. Total exercise time

The normality tests of Shapiro-Wilk for TET expressed a normal distribution in both HIIT group and MICT group. The range of TET was divided into three equal portion, and the short part was defined as the range of “short-time” group, the medium part as the range of “medium-time” group and the long part as the range of “long-time” group (S2 File).

3.3.2. Peak VO₂

3.3.2.1. Peak VO₂ in HF. In HF studies [8, 10, 21–34], HIIT had a significant improvement in peak VO₂ of 1.68 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 (95% CI: 0.81 to 2.55 n = 661) compared to MICT (Fig 3). Sensitive analyses (S1 Fig) showed that after omitting the included studies one by one, the lack of each of the three studies [10, 27, 34] led to an apparent change of the effectiveness of peak VO₂, which indicated that the three studies were the potential source of heterogeneity among HF studies. And likewise, the two studies [27, 34] were the potential source of heterogeneity among HFrEF studies. After exclusion of the three studies [10, 27, 34], the overall I² value reduced from 48% to 0%, which in turn proved that it was appropriate to identify the three studies as potential source of heterogeneity (Fig 4).

Subgroup analyses of TET of HIIT are shown in Fig 4A. After omitting three studies [10, 27, 34], the heterogeneity was significantly reduced in the “medium-time” subgroup (Fig 4B). As a result of omitting the three studies as potential source of heterogeneity, the change of peak VO₂ of “medium-time” group was reduced from 1.74 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 (95% CI: 0.53 to 2.95 n = 420) to 1.05 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 (95% CI: -0.15 to 2.25 n = 268). Subgroup analyses of TET of MICT showed the similar results (Fig 5).

Fig 5 — (a) Subgroup analysis of TET of MICT for HF in Peak VO₂; (b) sensitive analysis.

3.3.2.2. Peak VO₂ in HFrEF and HFpEF. Subgroup analyses of disease categories showed HIIT increased peak VO₂ of 1.89 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 (95% CI: 0.97 to 2.82 n = 520) comparing to MICT in HFrEF. And there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in improving peak VO₂ of 0.53 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 (95% CI: -1.13 to 2.18 n = 141) in HFpEF (Fig 6).

Fig 6 — Subgroup analysis of disease categories of HFrEF and HFpEF in Peak VO₂.

Subgroup analyses of TET of HFrEF studies [8, 22–24, 26–34] were performed with the similar results to HF studies [8, 10, 21–34] (S2 and S3 Figs). HIIT was superior to MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “short-time” group analysis of HIIT of HFrEF (WMD: 1.59 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.39 to 2.79 n = 151) and in “medium time” group analysis of HIIT of HFrEF (WMD: 2.17 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.94 to 3.39 n = 294), and there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “long-time” group analysis of HIIT of HFrEF (WMD: 0.62 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: -1.34 to 2.58 n = 75) (S2 Fig).

HIIT was superior to MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “short-time” group analysis of MICT of HFrEF (WMD: 2.37 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: 0.99 to 3.76 n = 198), and there was no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in improving Peak VO₂ in “medium-time” group analysis of MICT of HFrEF (WMD: 1.18 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: -0.70 to 3.06 n = 257) and in “long-time” group analysis of MICT of HFrEF (WMD: 1.92 ml · kg^-1 · min^-1 95% CI: -0.11 to 3.94 n = 65) (S3 Fig).

3.3.3. VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL

Nine studies [10, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27–29, 32] reported VE/VCO₂ slope as outcome with 143 participants in HIIT and 142 in MICT. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between HIIT and MICT in VE/VCO₂ slope of -0.76 (95% CI: -2.19 to 0.66 n = 285) (S4 Fig). There was no statistical difference between HIIT and MICT in QoL of -0.16 (95% CI: -0.48 to 0.17 n = 519) (S5 Fig).

3.3.4. Bias of publication

The asymmetry of distribution of the studies in funnel plot showed that there might be a bias of publication. However, the further results of contour-enhanced funnel plot showed that 7 studies of the 8 imputed studies had a P value of lower than 0.05, which meant that there were other potential reasons, for example the different intervention characteristics of HIIT and MICT or the obvious difference between studies in the general characteristics including the ratio of men to women, mean age, and LVEF and Peak VO₂ at baseline et al. (as shown in Tables 1 and 2), rather than the bias of publication contributing to the asymmetry of distribution (Fig 7).

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion

Our systematic review demonstrated the three findings below. (1) The superiority of HIIT to MICT in increasing Peak VO₂ for HF patients appeared in a short to medium TET whereas it was effaced by an increment of TET. And this trend could also be applicable to HFrEF patients. (2) HIIT was not superior to MICT for HFpEF patients in improving Peak VO₂. (3) It did not support HIIT was more beneficial than MICT in VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL for HF patients.

In the past, MICT, as a preference in exercise prescription, was recommended for patients with HF [35]. Yet, after HIIT was introduced in cardiac rehabilitation by the Norwegian group of Wisloff et al. showing superior clinical improvements in HF patients [34], a strong clinical interest of HIIT versus MICT has emerged. Since then, a growing number of small individual studies have compared HIIT with MICT for HF patients on the effectiveness, but the results of them have remained inconsistent and inconclusive for a long time. Until the only two multicenter large sample studies, SMARTEX Heart Failure study [8] and OptimEx-Clin study [10], were published, it seems that the different sounds should have calmed down. SMARTEX Heart Failure study for HFrEF patients reported that there was no difference between HIIT and MICT in peak oxygen uptake, but both of them were superior to recommendation of regular exercise (RRE), and this superiority disappeared at the follow-up after 52 weeks. OptimEx-Clin study for HFpEF patients concluded that there was no statistically significant difference between HIIT and MICT in peak oxygen uptake at 3 months and neither group met the prespecified minimal clinically important difference compared with the guideline control. Of note, in the sense of statistic, both HIIT and MICT actually had significant difference when compared with the guideline control at 3 months, and this significance finally disappeared at 12 months. In some sense, the two multicenter studies made a consistent conclusion. More importantly, both of the two studies have specifically expressed the worry that the attenuation in adherence to target exercise intensity or exercise protocols might affect their results. So it seems to be necessary to discuss if the flowing time, behind which was the attenuation in adherence, had contributed to such “negative” results. Our results of this meta-analysis have given a “yes” answer to this question.

The novelty of this systematic review is that we conducted a subgroup analysis by gathering studies with similar TET together. Interestingly, the subgroup analysis showed that the TET was a confounder impacting the effectiveness of HIIT versus MICT in Peak VO₂; but it was paradoxical that an increment of TET effaced the superiority of HIIT rather than strengthening it. As is known, the “FITT” concept (frequency, intensity, time, and type) is regarded as the basic tenets in exercise prescription, and energy expenditure is the product of ET [6]. Exercise intensity is proportionally related to the training volume of each unit which in turn multiplied by TET provides the total energy expenditure of a training program, and so the superiority of HIIT to MICT should have been strengthened in the “long-time” subgroup. Thus a paradox of TET in a training program seems to appear. Likewise, the SMARTEX study [8] has drawn a notable conclusion that at the follow-up of week 12, HIIT and MICT were both superior to RRE, but the superiority disappeared at the follow-up of week 52. The training records of SMARTEX study revealed that 51% of patients in HIIT exercised below the target intensity during the supervised cardiac rehabilitation of 12 weeks versus 80% in MICT above the target intensity. It is reasonable to deem that the poor adherence in HIIT to the target intensity might become increasing over time and then the increasing poor adherence led to a similar energy expenditure between HIIT and MICT which contributed to effacing the superiority of HIIT and MICT to RRE. If this assumption stands up, it is easy to understand why an increment of TET effaced the superiority of HIIT to MICT in this meta-analysis.

However, each coin has its two sides. The result that an increment of TET effaced the superiority of HIIT to MICT also means that an increment of TET effaced the inferiority of MICT to HIIT. How interesting the result is! As is discussed above continuing, even if the adherence in MICT descended over time as the HIIT did, the situation of the increasing poor adherence over time was probably not balanced between HIIT and MICT, which was perhaps more serious in HIIT. That is to say the total energy expenditure between HIIT and MICT still became similar over time because of the imbalance of the increasing poor adherence between HIIT and MICT. This assumption is consistent with the previous meta-analysis by Gomes Neto et al. [36] showing that HIIT could improve Peak VO₂ compared with MICT, but its superiority disappeared if total energy expenditure was balanced between HIIT and MICT. Different from Gomes Neto et al. [36], this study emphasizes the importance of total energy expenditure from the view of TET and intensity and it might be helpful to ultimately understand how the “FITT” works in HIIT versus MICT through total energy expenditure. From the results and interpretation of this meta-analysis, the relationship between HIIT and MICT and the role of them in cardiac rehabilitation is just like an old story of Aesop’s Fables about the turtle and the rabbit that had a race. HIIT is like the “rabbit” and MICT is the “turtle”, and TET is the witness to this “race”.

In this meta-analysis, we pooled HFpEF studies into analysis. And the results of subgroup analysis showed that it did not support HIIT was superior to MICT for HFpEF in improving Peak VO₂. An important caveat is that only three studies [10, 21, 25] of HFpEF were included, thus we could not perform the subgroup analysis of TET in HFpEF. So more randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm if this “negative” conclusion was contributed by the poor adherence behind TET.

The strength of our study is that we have revealed a “paradox” of TET and made an attempt to explain it, which highlights the importance of TET and adherence to the target intensity for HF patients in a sports description in a cardiac rehabilitation program. For example, it is crucial for physician, cardiologist and physiotherapist to help patients recognize and address the practice barriers of the training protocol to achieve the prescribed exercise intensity. Nonetheless, it might be inadvisable to power the full focus on the exercise intensity with the neglect of TET. For instance, a patient with inevitable practice barriers of achieving the prescribed exercise intensity would still obtain the same benefit from exercise training by prolonging the TET. So patients would profit most from a realistic protocol balancing exercise time and intensity for a full energy expenditure. In a vivid word, if a patient in a cardiac rehabilitation program is the “rabbit”, the key point to win the race is to keep his “speed” and if he is the “turtle”, the opportunity to catch up with the “rabbit” depends on the “persistence”. Certainly, this verdict needs more randomized and multicenter trials to confirm.

4.2. Limitations

Of the 16 studies, 14 were small size or/and single-center studies, which would limit the results of this meta-analysis. Thus, more studies conducted at multiple centers with with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to bolster the findings. Additionally, the contour-enhanced funnel plot showed the asymmetry of distribution of the studies in funnel plot was caused by some other potential reasons which might also limit the results of this meta-analysis, for example the different intervention characteristics of HIIT and MICT or the obvious difference between studies in the general characteristics including the ratio of men to women, mean age, and LVEF and Peak VO₂ at baseline et al. But complying with PRISMA guidelines in the process of this systematic review ensured the minimization of the biases involved in this systematic review.

5. Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed a “paradox” that the superiority of HIIT to MICT in improving Peak VO₂ arose in a short to medium length of TET whereas it was effaced by an increment of TET perhaps due to the increasing poor adherence to target intensity over time. In addition, we found HIIT was not superior to MICT in VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL for HF patients. Our findings give an implication that new studies should focus on the key aspects of adherence and report more details on it. Promoting standardized measures such as self-report questionnaires, exercise logs, and wearable devices would help to objectively monitor adherence. Besides, our findings support the use of a realistic exercise training protocol balancing exercise time and intensity for a full energy expenditure in a cardiac rehabilitation program. An important caveat is that the negative effect of attenuation in adherence on HF patients was just indirectly proved by conducting a subgroup analysis of TET.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 main checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.5KB, docx)}

S2 File. Descriptive statistical analysis of TET for HF and HFrEF with SPSS 21.0.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(530.6KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Sensitive analysis with STATA 16.0.

(a) for HF studies; (b) for HFrEF studies.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. (a) Subgroup analysis of TET of HIIT for HFrEF in Peak VO₂; (b) sensitive analysis.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. (a) Subgroup analysis of TET of MICT for HFrEF in Peak VO₂; (b) sensitive analysis.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, tif)}

S4 Fig. VE/VCO₂ slope.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(397.5KB, tif)}

S5 Fig. Quality of life.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(432.5KB, tif)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Baman JR, Ahmad FS. Heart Failure. JAMA. 2020;324(10):1015. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Ziaeian B, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and aetiology of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(6):368–78. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Cook C, Cole G, Asaria P, Jabbour R, Francis DP. The annual global economic burden of heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2014;171(3):368–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.12.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Fleg JL, Cooper LS, Borlaug BA, Haykowsky MJ, Kraus WE, Levine BD, et al. Exercise training as therapy for heart failure: current status and future directions. Circ Heart Fail. 2015;8(1):209–20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.113.001420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895–e1032. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Long L, Mordi IR, Bridges C, Sagar VA, Davies EJ, Coats AJ, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1(1):Cd003331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003331.pub5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Pelliccia A, Sharma S, Gati S, Bäck M, Börjesson M, Caselli S, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines on sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(1):17–96. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Ellingsen Ø, Halle M, Conraads V, Støylen A, Dalen H, Delagardelle C, et al. High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circulation. 2017;135(9):839–49. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Gayda M, Ribeiro PA, Juneau M, Nigam A. Comparison of Different Forms of Exercise Training in Patients With Cardiac Disease: Where Does High-Intensity Interval Training Fit? Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(4):485–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Mueller S, Winzer EB, Duvinage A, Gevaert AB, Edelmann F, Haller B, et al. Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training, Moderate Continuous Training, or Guideline-Based Physical Activity Advice on Peak Oxygen Consumption in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;325(6):542–51. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Schindler MJ, Adams V, Halle M. Exercise in Heart Failure-What Is the Optimal Dose to Improve Pathophysiology and Exercise Capacity? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2019;16(4):98–107. doi: 10.1007/s11897-019-00428-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Ismail H, McFarlane JR, Nojoumian AH, Dieberg G, Smart NA. Clinical outcomes and cardiovascular responses to different exercise training intensities in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(6):514–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2013.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.(MAGGIC) M-aGGiCHF. The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(14):1750–7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):251–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Guazzi M, Adams V, Conraads V, Halle M, Mezzani A, Vanhees L, et al. EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations. Circulation. 2012;126(18):2261–74. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31826fb946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Shephard RJ, Balady GJ. Exercise as cardiovascular therapy. Circulation. 1999;99(7):963–72. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.7.963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.van Tol BA, Huijsmans RJ, Kroon DW, Schothorst M, Kwakkel G. Effects of exercise training on cardiac performance, exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2006;8(8):841–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(6):1785–805. doi: 10.1177/0962280216669183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Angadi SS, Mookadam F, Lee CD, Tucker WJ, Haykowsky MJ, Gaesser GA. High-intensity interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous exercise training in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pilot study. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015;119(6):753–8. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00518.2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Benda NM, Seeger JP, Stevens GG, Hijmans-Kersten BT, van Dijk AP, Bellersen L, et al. Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training versus Continuous Training on Physical Fitness, Cardiovascular Function and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Besnier F, Labrunée M, Richard L, Faggianelli F, Kerros H, Soukarié L, et al. Short-term effects of a 3-week interval training program on heart rate variability in chronic heart failure. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019;62(5):321–8. 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Dimopoulos S, Anastasiou-Nana M, Sakellariou D, Drakos S, Kapsimalakou S, Maroulidis G, et al. Effects of exercise rehabilitation program on heart rate recovery in patients with chronic heart failure. European Journal Cardiovascular Prevention and. 2006;13(1):67–73. doi: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000198449.20775.7c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Donelli da Silveira A, Beust de Lima J, da Silva Piardi D, Dos Santos Macedo D, Zanini M, Nery R, et al. High-intensity interval training is effective and superior to moderate continuous training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(16):1733–43. doi: 10.1177/2047487319901206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Freyssin C, Verkindt C, Prieur F, Benaich P, Maunier S, Blanc P. Cardiac rehabilitation in chronic heart failure: effect of an 8-week, high-intensity interval training versus continuous training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8):1359–64. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Fu TC, Wang CH, Lin PS, Hsu CC, Cherng WJ, Huang SC, et al. Aerobic interval training improves oxygen uptake efficiency by enhancing cerebral and muscular hemodynamics in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(1):41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Iellamo F, Caminiti G, Sposato B, Vitale C, Massaro M, Rosano G, et al. Effect of High-Intensity interval training versus moderate continuous training on 24-h blood pressure profile and insulin resistance in patients with chronic heart failure. Intern Emerg Med. 2014;9(5):547–52. doi: 10.1007/s11739-013-0980-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Iellamo F, Manzi V, Caminiti G, Vitale C, Castagna C, Massaro M, et al. Matched dose interval and continuous exercise training induce similar cardiorespiratory and metabolic adaptations in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(6):2561–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Koufaki P, Mercer TH, George KP, Nolan J. Low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic cycling in patients with chronic heart failure: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial of feasibility and effectiveness. Journal rehabilitation medicine. 2014;46(4):348–56. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Papathanasiou JV, Petrov I, Tokmakova MP, Dimitrova DD, Spasov L, Dzhafer NS, et al. Group-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions. A challenge for physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56(4):479–88. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06013-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Roditis P, Dimopoulos S, Sakellariou D, Sarafoglou S, Kaldara E, Venetsanakos J, et al. The effects of exercise training on the kinetics of oxygen uptake in patients with chronic heart failure. European Journal Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. 2007;14(2):304–11. doi: 10.1097/hjr.0b013e32808621a3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Ulbrich AZ, Angarten VG, Schmitt Netto A, Sties SW, Bündchen DC, Mara LSD, et al. Comparative effects of high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on quality of life in patients with heart failure: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials and Regulatory Science Cardiology. 2016;13:21–8. 10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.11.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
34.Wisløff U, Støylen A, Loennechen JP, Bruvold M, Rognmo Ø, Haram PM, et al. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation. 2007;115(24):3086–94. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.675041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, McMurray JJV, Ponikowski P, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). European Journal of Heart Failure. 2008;10(10):933–89. 10.1016/j.ejheart.2008.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Gomes Neto M, Durães AR, Conceição LSR, Saquetto MB, Ellingsen Ø, Carvalho VO. High intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2018;261:134–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.02.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290362.r001

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

5 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-18099Effects of High Intensity Interval Training versus Moderate Intensity Continuous Training on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Du,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

3. Please upload a new copy of Figures 4 and 5 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/" https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In their study, Gu et al. conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in individuals with heart failure. The importance of this study cannot be overstated, as optimizing exercise therapies in this population has significant implications for their overall well-being and management. However, to further enhance the study’s robustness the authors should consider incorporating the following points.

1. Page 1, Lines 11-17: Methods and results: it would be helpful if the authors could expand on the details of the electronic literature search, including the databases used and the number of studies included in the analysis. The authors should also consider reporting the effect sizes and confidence intervals for the subgroup analyses of TET to provide more precise information and improve the transparency of the study.

2. Page 10, Lines 35-39: The introduction provides a general overview of heart failure (HF) and its impact on quality of life. However, it would be helpful if the authors could include specific statistics to support the statements regarding the prevalence and burden of HF.

3. Page 11, Lines 42-45: The authors mention the benefits of exercise training (ET) for HF patients, but the introduction lacks a rationale for discussing the comparison between high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). It would be beneficial if the authors could provide a stronger justification for exploring the effectiveness of HIIT and MICT in HF patients.

4. Page 11, Lines 47-50: The authors have referred to the SMARTEX and OptimEx-Clin study, as both have made negative conclusions about the superiority of HIIT over MICT. It would be informative for the reader if the authors could briefly summarize the findings of these studies and their implications in a concise manner.

5. Page 11, Lines 53-56: The discussion of training and total exercise time (TET) is interesting, but it would be beneficial for the readers’ understanding if the authors could further clarify it. Consider providing a brief explanation of why training duration may not accurately represent the actual exercise time and how TET can provide a more comprehensive measure.

6. Pages 13-14, Lines 105-110: The authors should consider providing additional information regarding any disagreements or a process for resolving conflicts between reviewers while screening and selecting studies. This will improve the transparency and reliability of the study.

7. Page 14, Lines 112-114: The critical appraisal of included studies demonstrates an effort to assess the methodological quality of the studies. However, it would be valuable to report on the specific domains assessed and whether any measures were taken to mitigate the potential bias.

8. Page 13, Lines 91-92: The authors have mentioned the outcomes of interest Peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, and QoL. Please consider specifying how these outcomes were assessed and whether any standardized measurements were used.

9. Page 15, Lines 125-136: It is mentioned that Review Manager (Version 5.4), SPSS (Version 21.0), and STATA (Version 16.0) were used for data analysis. It would be informative if the authors could state the specific analyses conducted with each software. This would help enhance the transparency of the study.

10. Page 15, Lines 140-145: The authors have provided information on the number of articles identified, duplicates removed, and studies excluded at each stage of the screening process. However, the authors should consider providing specific reasons for excluding the studies as this would help improve the reliability of the study.

11. Page 16, Lines 168-172: The authors should expand on the interpretation of the sensitivity analyses conducted, specify why certain studies were identified as sources of potential heterogeneity, and explain why their exclusion affected the overall results. This could help increase the robustness of the results.

12. Page 17, Lines 180-182: It would be helpful if the authors could include the effect sizes along with the corresponding confidence intervals for all the reported outcomes. This could help enhance the interpretation of the results for the reader.

13. Page 17, Lines 193-195: Please provide additional information on the potential reasons for the asymmetry observed in the funnel plot, as this could help in better understanding the factors influencing the distribution of studies and improve the interpretation of publication bias in the research.

14. Page 20: The study explains how poor adherence over time can affect the total energy expenditure and the superiority and inferiority of HIIT and MICT. However, it would be beneficial if the authors could provide specific examples or evidence from the analyzed studies to strengthen these claims.

15. Page 22, Line 290: Please consider revising the sentence “limited by the scarcity of high-quality, large sample”. It would be helpful to clarify the specific characteristics that were lacking in the included studies. For instance, the authors could mention the need for studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods, and studies conducted at multiple centers to bolster the findings.

16. Page 22, Lines 292-296: Although the authors have mentioned the use of a counter-enhanced funnel plot, they haven’t provided an explanation for the observed asymmetry in the funnel plot. The authors should consider discussing the potential reasons for this asymmetry and its implications. Factors such as selective reporting or study design limitations could contribute to the observed funnel plot asymmetry.

17. Page 22 Lines 299-306: While the suggestion for future studies to report more details on adherence to HIIT or MICT is commendable, it would be valuable to provide specific recommendations to researchers. For instance, the authors could identify key aspects of adherence to focus on and promote standardized measures such as self-report questionnaires, exercise logs, and wearable devices to objectively monitor adherence.

18. Page 22 Lines 299-306: To provide a more comprehensible perspective for readers and facilitate proper interpretation of the findings, it would be beneficial to briefly address the limitations of the study. This will ensure that the readers interpret the findings in the appropriate context.

19. Page 11, Lines 51-52: The authors should consider rephrasing the phrase “In order to make it clear if the flowing time, behind which was the attenuation in adherence”. The sentence is hard to follow and might be ambiguous for the readers.

20. Page 11, Line 45: Please correct the spelling of the word trials.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 17;18(8):e0290362. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290362.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Jul 2023

Dear Editor,

We would like to voice our great appreciation to you and the reviewer.

We thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to perfect our manuscript, of which the title is “Effects of High Intensity Interval Training versus Moderate Intensity Continuous Training on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis” with an ID “PONE-D-23-18099”, following the constructive suggestions of the reviewer. We also appreciate the volunteer reviewer for his positive comments to our work and for his helpful, constructive and meticulous suggestions.

Thank you!

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Xinchao Du on behalf of the authors.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290362.r003

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

7 Aug 2023

Effects of High Intensity Interval Training versus Moderate Intensity Continuous Training on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PONE-D-23-18099R1

Dear Dr. Du,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290362.r004

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

9 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-18099R1

Dear Dr. Du:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Checklist. PRISMA 2020 main checklist.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(26.3KB, docx)}

S1 File. Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.5KB, docx)}

S2 File. Descriptive statistical analysis of TET for HF and HFrEF with SPSS 21.0.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(530.6KB, docx)}

S1 Fig. Sensitive analysis with STATA 16.0.

(a) for HF studies; (b) for HFrEF studies.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1MB, tif)}

S2 Fig. (a) Subgroup analysis of TET of HIIT for HFrEF in Peak VO₂; (b) sensitive analysis.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, tif)}

S3 Fig. (a) Subgroup analysis of TET of MICT for HFrEF in Peak VO₂; (b) sensitive analysis.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.9MB, tif)}

S4 Fig. VE/VCO₂ slope.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(397.5KB, tif)}

S5 Fig. Quality of life.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.^{(432.5KB, tif)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(18.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0290362.ref001] 1.Baman JR, Ahmad FS. Heart Failure. JAMA. 2020;324(10):1015. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.13310 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref002] 2.Ziaeian B, Fonarow GC. Epidemiology and aetiology of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(6):368–78. doi: 10.1038/nrcardio.2016.25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref003] 3.Cook C, Cole G, Asaria P, Jabbour R, Francis DP. The annual global economic burden of heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2014;171(3):368–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2013.12.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref004] 4.Fleg JL, Cooper LS, Borlaug BA, Haykowsky MJ, Kraus WE, Levine BD, et al. Exercise training as therapy for heart failure: current status and future directions. Circ Heart Fail. 2015;8(1):209–20. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.113.001420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref005] 5.Heidenreich PA, Bozkurt B, Aguilar D, Allen LA, Byun JJ, Colvin MM, et al. 2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145(18):e895–e1032. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref006] 6.Long L, Mordi IR, Bridges C, Sagar VA, Davies EJ, Coats AJ, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;1(1):Cd003331. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003331.pub5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref007] 7.Pelliccia A, Sharma S, Gati S, Bäck M, Börjesson M, Caselli S, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines on sports cardiology and exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(1):17–96. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa605 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref008] 8.Ellingsen Ø, Halle M, Conraads V, Støylen A, Dalen H, Delagardelle C, et al. High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction. Circulation. 2017;135(9):839–49. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref009] 9.Gayda M, Ribeiro PA, Juneau M, Nigam A. Comparison of Different Forms of Exercise Training in Patients With Cardiac Disease: Where Does High-Intensity Interval Training Fit? Can J Cardiol. 2016;32(4):485–94. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2016.01.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref010] 10.Mueller S, Winzer EB, Duvinage A, Gevaert AB, Edelmann F, Haller B, et al. Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training, Moderate Continuous Training, or Guideline-Based Physical Activity Advice on Peak Oxygen Consumption in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2021;325(6):542–51. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.26812 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref011] 11.Schindler MJ, Adams V, Halle M. Exercise in Heart Failure-What Is the Optimal Dose to Improve Pathophysiology and Exercise Capacity? Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2019;16(4):98–107. doi: 10.1007/s11897-019-00428-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref012] 12.Ismail H, McFarlane JR, Nojoumian AH, Dieberg G, Smart NA. Clinical outcomes and cardiovascular responses to different exercise training intensities in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1(6):514–22. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2013.08.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref013] 13.(MAGGIC) M-aGGiCHF. The survival of patients with heart failure with preserved or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(14):1750–7. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr254 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref014] 14.Owan TE, Hodge DO, Herges RM, Jacobsen SJ, Roger VL, Redfield MM. Trends in prevalence and outcome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(3):251–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052256 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref015] 15.Guazzi M, Adams V, Conraads V, Halle M, Mezzani A, Vanhees L, et al. EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement. Clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations. Circulation. 2012;126(18):2261–74. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e31826fb946 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref016] 16.Shephard RJ, Balady GJ. Exercise as cardiovascular therapy. Circulation. 1999;99(7):963–72. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.99.7.963 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref017] 17.van Tol BA, Huijsmans RJ, Kroon DW, Schothorst M, Kwakkel G. Effects of exercise training on cardiac performance, exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure: a meta-analysis. Eur J Heart Fail. 2006;8(8):841–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ejheart.2006.02.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref018] 18.Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Bmj. 2009;339:b2535. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref019] 19.Luo D, Wan X, Liu J, Tong T. Optimally estimating the sample mean from the sample size, median, mid-range, and/or mid-quartile range. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(6):1785–805. doi: 10.1177/0962280216669183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref020] 20.Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:135. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-135 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref021] 21.Angadi SS, Mookadam F, Lee CD, Tucker WJ, Haykowsky MJ, Gaesser GA. High-intensity interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous exercise training in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pilot study. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015;119(6):753–8. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00518.2014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref022] 22.Benda NM, Seeger JP, Stevens GG, Hijmans-Kersten BT, van Dijk AP, Bellersen L, et al. Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training versus Continuous Training on Physical Fitness, Cardiovascular Function and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0141256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref023] 23.Besnier F, Labrunée M, Richard L, Faggianelli F, Kerros H, Soukarié L, et al. Short-term effects of a 3-week interval training program on heart rate variability in chronic heart failure. A randomised controlled trial. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2019;62(5):321–8. 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref024] 24.Dimopoulos S, Anastasiou-Nana M, Sakellariou D, Drakos S, Kapsimalakou S, Maroulidis G, et al. Effects of exercise rehabilitation program on heart rate recovery in patients with chronic heart failure. European Journal Cardiovascular Prevention and. 2006;13(1):67–73. doi: 10.1097/01.hjr.0000198449.20775.7c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref025] 25.Donelli da Silveira A, Beust de Lima J, da Silva Piardi D, Dos Santos Macedo D, Zanini M, Nery R, et al. High-intensity interval training is effective and superior to moderate continuous training in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2020;27(16):1733–43. doi: 10.1177/2047487319901206 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref026] 26.Freyssin C, Verkindt C, Prieur F, Benaich P, Maunier S, Blanc P. Cardiac rehabilitation in chronic heart failure: effect of an 8-week, high-intensity interval training versus continuous training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8):1359–64. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.03.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref027] 27.Fu TC, Wang CH, Lin PS, Hsu CC, Cherng WJ, Huang SC, et al. Aerobic interval training improves oxygen uptake efficiency by enhancing cerebral and muscular hemodynamics in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(1):41–50. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.11.086 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref028] 28.Iellamo F, Caminiti G, Sposato B, Vitale C, Massaro M, Rosano G, et al. Effect of High-Intensity interval training versus moderate continuous training on 24-h blood pressure profile and insulin resistance in patients with chronic heart failure. Intern Emerg Med. 2014;9(5):547–52. doi: 10.1007/s11739-013-0980-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref029] 29.Iellamo F, Manzi V, Caminiti G, Vitale C, Castagna C, Massaro M, et al. Matched dose interval and continuous exercise training induce similar cardiorespiratory and metabolic adaptations in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(6):2561–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.06.057 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref030] 30.Koufaki P, Mercer TH, George KP, Nolan J. Low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic cycling in patients with chronic heart failure: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial of feasibility and effectiveness. Journal rehabilitation medicine. 2014;46(4):348–56. doi: 10.2340/16501977-1278 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref031] 31.Papathanasiou JV, Petrov I, Tokmakova MP, Dimitrova DD, Spasov L, Dzhafer NS, et al. Group-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions. A challenge for physical and rehabilitation medicine physicians: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020;56(4):479–88. doi: 10.23736/S1973-9087.20.06013-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref032] 32.Roditis P, Dimopoulos S, Sakellariou D, Sarafoglou S, Kaldara E, Venetsanakos J, et al. The effects of exercise training on the kinetics of oxygen uptake in patients with chronic heart failure. European Journal Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. 2007;14(2):304–11. doi: 10.1097/hjr.0b013e32808621a3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref033] 33.Ulbrich AZ, Angarten VG, Schmitt Netto A, Sties SW, Bündchen DC, Mara LSD, et al. Comparative effects of high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on quality of life in patients with heart failure: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Trials and Regulatory Science Cardiology. 2016;13:21–8. 10.1016/j.ctrsc.2015.11.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref034] 34.Wisløff U, Støylen A, Loennechen JP, Bruvold M, Rognmo Ø, Haram PM, et al. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation. 2007;115(24):3086–94. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.675041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref035] 35.Dickstein K, Cohen-Solal A, Filippatos G, McMurray JJV, Ponikowski P, Poole-Wilson PA, et al. ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute and Chronic Heart Failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). European Journal of Heart Failure. 2008;10(10):933–89. 10.1016/j.ejheart.2008.08.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0290362.ref036] 36.Gomes Neto M, Durães AR, Conceição LSR, Saquetto MB, Ellingsen Ø, Carvalho VO. High intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2018;261:134–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2018.02.076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Effects of high intensity interval training versus moderate intensity continuous training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Shengyuan Gu

Xinchao Du

Dongwei Wang

Yaohua Yu

Shifang Guo

Roles

Abstract

Introduction and aims

Methods and results

Conclusions

Trial registration

1. Introduction

1.1. Review question

1.2. Eligibility criteria

2. Methods

2.1. Search strategy

2.2. Screening and selection

2.3. Critical appraisal

2.4. Data extraction

2.5. Data synthesis

3. Results

3.1. Study inclusion

Fig 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

3.2. Characteristics of included studies and methodological quality

Table 1. General characteristics of included studies.

Table 2. Intervention characteristics of HIIT versus MICT in included studies.

Fig 2. Risk of bias summary.

3.3. Empirical results

3.3.1. Total exercise time

3.3.2. Peak VO2

Fig 3. Peak VO2 in HF.

Fig 4.

Fig 5.

Fig 6.

3.3.3. VE/VCO2 slope and QoL

3.3.4. Bias of publication

Fig 7. Bias of publication.

4. Discussion

4.1. Discussion

4.2. Limitations

5. Conclusion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Roles

Acceptance letter

Ahmed Mustafa Rashid

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases

3.3.2. Peak VO₂

Fig 3. Peak VO₂ in HF.

3.3.3. VE/VCO₂ slope and QoL