class=”kwd-title”>Keywords: exercise training heart failure knowledge gaps therapy Copyright notice

class=”kwd-title”>Keywords: exercise training heart failure knowledge gaps therapy Copyright notice and Disclaimer The publisher’s final edited version of this article is available free at Circ Heart Fail See other articles in PMC that cite the published article. and is Tepoxalin a strong determinant of prognosis and of reduced QOL. (2) Exercise training (ET) improves exercise intolerance and QOL in patients with chronic stable HFrEF ?and has become an accepted adjunct therapy for these patients (Class B level of evidence) based on a fairly extensive evidence base of randomized trials mostly small. (3) The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI)-funded HF-ACTION trial compared an individualized supervised and home-based aerobic exercise program plus guideline-based pharmacologic and device therapy with guideline-based therapy alone in persons with HFrEF. The exercise arm showed a modest reduction in cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations and mortality and improved QOL. (4 5 However problems with adherence in the exercise arm likely dampened the potential benefit. This landmark study leaves unanswered a number of key questions including the role of exercise dose; the relative benefit of different types of aerobic exercise including high intensity interval training and resistance training relative to aerobic training; combination of ET with other therapies; optimization of adherence; benefit for Tepoxalin older HF patients those with HFpEF or multiple comorbidities and those with acute decompensated HF. The NHLBI convened a working group of experts on June 11 2012 in Bethesda Maryland to identify knowledge gaps and to suggest general approaches to filling those gaps for exercise training as a treatment for HF. The NHLBI invited experts in a variety of areas including basic and clinical exercise physiologists HF and cardiac rehabilitation specialists and clinical trial specialists to address these issues. Workshop participants were asked to identify knowledge gaps and to suggest general approaches in basic and clinical investigation to evaluate optimize and translate the potential role of exercise training in the treatment of HF. They were asked to address the following specific questions: What more needs to be learned about Tepoxalin the pathophysiology of exercise intolerance in HFpEF and HFrEF in order to design better exercise treatments? What do we need to learn regarding the mechanisms of exercise training and of the training-related improvements (or lack thereof)? What do we know about the need to tailor exercise regimens to specific HF populations e.g. persons with multiple comorbidities frail elderly and women? What evolving innovative new exercise training modalities and combinations should be tested? Can we begin rehabilitation earlier and in Tepoxalin more severe decompensated patients? How can we improve long-term exercise adherence and maintenance? How can we decrease the cost of exercise training interventions while increasing their generalizability and dissemination (e.g. home therapy community centers avoidance of ECG monitoring)? Is there a more efficient yet clinically meaningful outcome than mortality or exercise capacity in trials of HFpEF and HFrEF? Given the focus of the current manuscript on these questions the reader is referred to excellent recent reviews of exercise training in HF for additional Mouse Monoclonal to His tag. general information on this topic. (6 7 Pathophysiology of Exercise Intolerance in Heart Tepoxalin Failure: Cardiac Limitations Exercise intolerance typically quantified by the reduction in peak oxygen consumed during maximal effort exercise (peak VO2) is a hallmark of HFpEF and HFrEF. (2) According to the Fick principle VO2 is equal to the product of cardiac output (CO) and arteriovenous oxygen difference (a-vO2 diff).Thus deficits in reserve capacity i.e. the change from rest to peak effort in either component or both may cause reduction in peak VO2 in HF. CO reserve limitation has been repeatedly though not invariably observed in HFpEF and HFrEF and is related to impairments in both heart rate (HR) and stroke volume (SV) responses. (6-10) An early study identified limited ability to recruit preload (LV end diastolic volume EDV) as the key mechanism limiting peak VO2 in HFpEF (9) but a more recent study observed that EDV reserve is similar in HFpEF and controls (10). Chronotropic reserve is typically blunted in both HFrEF and HFpEF (2 8 and it remains unknown whether EDV reserve would be similar if HR during exercise were higher in HFpEF as with rate-adaptive pacing. Though EDV reserve is preserved in.