Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
PulseExploreJournal ClubResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeJournal ClubExplore
June 12, 2026European Journal of Preventive CardiologyOpen Access

Impact of different exercise training modalities on patient-reported outcomes in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction

View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Why the study?

Does 12 weeks of supervised exercise training (HIIT or MCT) improve patient-reported outcomes compared to standard care in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF?

Population

391 patients with heart failure, comprising 215 with HFrEF and 176 with HFpEF.

Comparison

12 weeks of supervised exercise training, either… vs Standard care (non-exercise controls).

Design

Meta-analysis

Follow-up

3 months

Authors

FDF DelvaeyeECE M Van CraenenbroeckSMS Mueller

Discussion

Loading...

Member takes

Overview

Exercise training yields only small, nonsignificant KCCQ OSS gains similar across groups; confirms limited overall PRO benefit in HF.

Key Points

  • This study aimed to evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval training and moderate continuous training on patient-reported outcomes in heart failure patients.
  • Pooled analysis of two randomized controlled trials (SMARTEX-HF and OptimEx-CLIN) evaluating HIIT, MCT, and standard care.
  • Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score after 12 weeks of supervised exercise training.
  • A total of 391 patients were analyzed, including those with reduced and preserved ejection fraction.
  • No significant differences were observed in KCCQ overall summary score across all groups (MCT +4.7, HIIT +3.2, control +3.3).
  • HIIT showed clinically meaningful gains in social limitation and symptom stability, while MCT improved quality of life and symptom burden.
  • Women had higher KCCQ scores than men, but changes did not differ significantly between sexes.

Structured PICO

Does 12 weeks of supervised exercise training (HIIT or MCT) improve patient-reported outcomes compared to standard care in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF?

P
Population
391 patients with heart failure, comprising 215 with HFrEF (LVEF ≤35% on optimal HF therapy) and 176 with HFpEF (LVEF ≥50% and elevated natriuretic peptides or diastolic dysfunction).
I
Intervention
12 weeks of supervised exercise training, either high-intensity interval training (HIIT) or moderate continuous training (MCT).
C
Comparator
Standard care (non-exercise controls).
O
Outcome
Change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) overall summary score (OSS) from baseline to 3 months.patient reported

A 12-week supervised exercise training program (HIIT or MCT) did not significantly improve patient-reported quality of life scores compared to standard care in patients with HFrEF or HFpEF.

Cite This Study

Delvaeye et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2bd1386550ea4541ffe991https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwag249.233
View Full Paper
Ask AI
Bookmark
Share

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Long-Term Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on Cardiac Function and Mortality in Heart Failure2025
  2. 2Comparison of different aerobic exercise modalities on echocardiographic variables in early cardiac rehabilitation2026
  3. 3Cardiac rehabilitation and health‐related quality of life in preserved ejection fraction heart failure: A meta‐analysis2025
  4. 4Effect of Structured Exercise Training on Chronotropic Incompetence in Patients with Heart Failure with preserved Ejection Fraction2025
  5. 5Impact of Exercise Rehabilitation on Exercise Capacity and Quality-of-Life in Heart Failure2019 · 271 citations