Effects of adding high- vs low-intensity resistance training to endurance training in patients with heart failure: preliminary results of a randomized controlled trial

Abstract Background In current ESC/EAPC guidelines, adding resistance training to endurance is advised for patients with heart failure (HF), but the optimal intensity of unknown (40–80% 1RM advised). Purpose To investigate effects high- vs low-intensity as an adjunct on: aerobic capacity (primary outcome), walking capacity, muscle strength and quality life in HF. Methods Forty HF were consecutively recruited cardiac rehabilitation center Hospital East-Limburg Belgium. Patients block-randomized (by age sex) by independent researcher receive maximally 45 supervised sessions (3x/week) high-intense (HI: 3 exercises, 3x12 repetitions, 55–70%1RM) or low-intense (LI: 3x22 35–40%1RM) (30 min/session; 50–75% VO2max). The (VO2max) was measured a blinded assessor ramp cardiopulmonary cycling test (+5–30W/min). Walking distance assessed 6-minute walk (6MWT), maximal (leg-press, pull-down dip), Minnesota questionnaire. An unpaired t-test, Mann-Whitney U ANCOVA used between-group analysis, paired t-test Wilcox sign-rank within-group analysis. Results Both groups had similar baseline characteristics adherence (HI LI; 20 subjects; Age: 62±9 59±13 years; Sex: 76% 79%male; BMI: 27±58 29±4 kg/m2; LVEF: 35±10 38±6%; Adherence: 33±10 36±10 sessions; p>0.05). There no adverse events. significant improvements (VO2max: LI (n=20) HI (n=19), p≤0.010; 6MWT distance: p≤0.007) (Figure 1), these did not differ between p=0.855; p=0.854). group improved significantly more than (dip leg-press: p<0.001). Although (Minnesota score reduction: p=0.028), score: p=0.756). Conclusions low-and are similarly beneficial improving Surprisingly, seems superior strength. Funding Acknowledgement Type funding sources: Public Institution(s). Main source(s): Hasselt University