Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with left ventricular assist devices: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Mohamed Abuelazm, Ahmed A Ibrahim, Ahmed Mazen Amin, Mahmoud Shaban, Ubaid Khan, Hazem Rezq, Hossam Elbenawi, Maha T Abuelazm, Mustafa Turkmani, Basel Abdelazeem, Christopher Bianco, Sudarshan Balla
{"title":"Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with left ventricular assist devices: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Mohamed Abuelazm, Ahmed A Ibrahim, Ahmed Mazen Amin, Mahmoud Shaban, Ubaid Khan, Hazem Rezq, Hossam Elbenawi, Maha T Abuelazm, Mustafa Turkmani, Basel Abdelazeem, Christopher Bianco, Sudarshan Balla","doi":"10.1080/17434440.2025.2468788","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Data on the efficacy and safety of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) remains limited. This study aims to pool evidence on EBCR's efficacy and safety in LVAD patients and compare high-intensity (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity (MIIT) regimens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2024. A fixed-effects model reported dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The study was registered in PROSPERO under the identifier 'CRD42024506485.'</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six RCTs with 160 patients were included. No significant difference was found between EBCR and usual care for peak VO2 change [<i>p</i> = 0.22] and six-minute walk distance (6-MWD) change [<i>p</i> = 0.16]. Similarly, no significant difference was observed between HIIT and MICT for peak VO2 change [<i>p</i> = 0.52] and 6-MWD change [<i>p</i> = 0.61]. Moreover, there was no significant difference between EBCR and usual care regarding the incidence of adverse events [<i>p</i> = 0.09], and between HIIT and MICT exercise [<i>p</i> = 0.71].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The evidence suggests EBCR does not improve functional capacity, measured by peak VO2 or 6-MWD, in LVAD patients. However, EBCR is safe, with similar adverse event rates compared to usual care.</p>","PeriodicalId":94006,"journal":{"name":"Expert review of medical devices","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert review of medical devices","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2025.2468788","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Data on the efficacy and safety of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR) in patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVAD) remains limited. This study aims to pool evidence on EBCR's efficacy and safety in LVAD patients and compare high-intensity (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity (MIIT) regimens.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science up to January 2024. A fixed-effects model reported dichotomous outcomes using risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes using standardized mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The study was registered in PROSPERO under the identifier 'CRD42024506485.'

Results: Six RCTs with 160 patients were included. No significant difference was found between EBCR and usual care for peak VO2 change [p = 0.22] and six-minute walk distance (6-MWD) change [p = 0.16]. Similarly, no significant difference was observed between HIIT and MICT for peak VO2 change [p = 0.52] and 6-MWD change [p = 0.61]. Moreover, there was no significant difference between EBCR and usual care regarding the incidence of adverse events [p = 0.09], and between HIIT and MICT exercise [p = 0.71].

Conclusion: The evidence suggests EBCR does not improve functional capacity, measured by peak VO2 or 6-MWD, in LVAD patients. However, EBCR is safe, with similar adverse event rates compared to usual care.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
背景:有关左心室辅助装置(LVAD)患者心脏康复运动(EBCR)的有效性和安全性的数据仍然有限。本研究旨在汇集有关 LVAD 患者 EBCR 疗效和安全性的证据,并比较高强度(HIIT)和中等强度(MIIT)方案:我们对截至 2024 年 1 月的 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane、Scopus 和 Web of Science 中的随机对照试验 (RCT) 进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。固定效应模型使用风险比(RR)报告二分结果,使用标准化平均差(SMD)和 95% 置信区间(CI)报告连续结果。该研究已在 PROSPERO 注册,标识符为 "CRD42024506485":共纳入了六项研究,160 名患者。在峰值 VO2 变化[p = 0.22]和六分钟步行距离(6-MWD)变化[p = 0.16]方面,EBCR 与常规护理无明显差异。同样,在 VO2 峰值变化 [p = 0.52] 和 6 分钟步行距离变化 [p = 0.61] 方面,HIIT 和 MICT 之间也未发现明显差异。此外,在不良事件发生率方面,EBCR 和常规护理之间没有明显差异[p = 0.09],HIIT 和 MICT 运动之间也没有明显差异[p = 0.71]:证据表明,EBCR 并不能提高 LVAD 患者的功能能力(以峰值 VO2 或 6-MWD 衡量)。然而,EBCR 是安全的,不良事件发生率与常规护理相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with left ventricular assist devices: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Current status and prospects of robot-assisted spine surgery. The use of predetermined change control plans to enable the release of new versions of software as a medical device. Effectiveness of mental health chatbots in depression and anxiety for adolescents and young adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. The E-nside, multi- inner branch-based off-the-shelf stent graft for the treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1