PURPOSE: Most training studies in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) do not consider CHF aetiology in the interpretation of the results. About 60% of the patients in those studies have ischemic CHF (IHF) and 40% non-ischemic CHF (NHF). Recently, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to study three different training modalities in 60 patients with severe CHF, with a similar distribution of IHF and NHF patients. In the present post hoc analysis we compared the differences in training results between ischemic and non-ischemic patients. METHODS:Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV), measured with radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) and echocardiography, NT-pro BNP, peak oxygen uptake (peak V(O)(2)), working capacity and muscular volume were analyzed before and after training in 45 patients training for 40 sessions, 3 times per week. Fifteen patients served as control group. The outcome was analyzed considering the aetiology of CHF, either ischemic or non-ischemic. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in improvements of peak V(O)(2), working capacity and muscular volume between IHF and NHF patients. In NHF patients, EF increased while EDV and ESV decreased after training. These parameters remained unchanged in IHF patients after training. NT-pro BNP decreased significantly in NHF patients and increased in IHF patients after training. In the control group, patients showed a mild improvement of EF and a decrease of NT-pro BNP. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis shows that training intervention is associated with significant reverse remodelling in NHF, but not in IHF patients, whereas V(O)(2) peak and muscle volume improve regardless of CHF aetiology. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Most training studies in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) do not consider CHF aetiology in the interpretation of the results. About 60% of the patients in those studies have ischemic CHF (IHF) and 40% non-ischemic CHF (NHF). Recently, we conducted a randomized controlled trial to study three different training modalities in 60 patients with severe CHF, with a similar distribution of IHF and NHF patients. In the present post hoc analysis we compared the differences in training results between ischemic and non-ischemicpatients. METHODS: Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV), measured with radionuclide ventriculography (RNV) and echocardiography, NT-pro BNP, peak oxygen uptake (peak V(O)(2)), working capacity and muscular volume were analyzed before and after training in 45 patients training for 40 sessions, 3 times per week. Fifteen patients served as control group. The outcome was analyzed considering the aetiology of CHF, either ischemic or non-ischemic. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in improvements of peak V(O)(2), working capacity and muscular volume between IHF and NHF patients. In NHF patients, EF increased while EDV and ESV decreased after training. These parameters remained unchanged in IHF patients after training. NT-pro BNP decreased significantly in NHF patients and increased in IHF patients after training. In the control group, patients showed a mild improvement of EF and a decrease of NT-pro BNP. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis shows that training intervention is associated with significant reverse remodelling in NHF, but not in IHF patients, whereas V(O)(2) peak and muscle volume improve regardless of CHF aetiology. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings.
Authors: Michael R Bristow; Leslie A Saxon; John Boehmer; Steven Krueger; David A Kass; Teresa De Marco; Peter Carson; Lorenzo DiCarlo; David DeMets; Bill G White; Dale W DeVries; Arthur M Feldman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-20 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charlotte Kragelund; Bjørn Grønning; Lars Køber; Per Hildebrandt; Rolf Steffensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Barry J Maron; Jeffrey A Towbin; Gaetano Thiene; Charles Antzelevitch; Domenico Corrado; Donna Arnett; Arthur J Moss; Christine E Seidman; James B Young Journal: Circulation Date: 2006-03-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: F Zannad; S Briancon; Y Juilliere; P M Mertes; J P Villemot; F Alla; J M Virion Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: G M Felker; R E Thompson; J M Hare; R H Hruban; D E Clemetson; D L Howard; K L Baughman; E K Kasper Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-04-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Patrick Feiereisen; Charles Delagardelle; Michel Vaillant; Yves Lasar; Jean Beissel Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Daniel R Wagner; Norbert Roesch; Patrick Harpes; Heinrich Körtke; Pierre Plumer; Amir Saberin; Viviane Chakoutio; Denis Oundjede; Charles Delagardelle; Jean Beissel; Georges Gilson; Ingrid Kindermann; Michael Böhm Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-05-16 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Olaf Schulz; Andre Rudolph; Sarah Scheiner; Helena Mut; Jeanette Schulz-Menger; Gunnar Berghoefer; Ricarda Bensch; Jochen Kraemer; Ingolf Schimke Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-09-02 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: C Zugck; J Franke; G Gelbrich; L Frankenstein; T Scheffold; S Pankuweit; H D Duengen; V Regitz-Zagrosek; B Pieske; T Neumann; M Rauchhaus; C E Angermann; H A Katus; G E Ertl; S Störk Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2011-12-03 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Janina Schroeder; Andreas Peterschroeder; Bernhard Vaske; Thomas Butz; Peter Barth; Olaf Oldenburg; Thomas Bitter; Wolfgang Burchert; Dieter Horstkotte; Christoph Langer Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: H Kälsch; N Lehmann; S Möhlenkamp; T Neumann; U Slomiany; Axel Schmermund; Andreas Stang; S Moebus; M Bauer; K Mann; K-H Jöckel; R Erbel Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 5.460