Addition of Supervised Exercise Training to a Post-Hospital Disease Management Program for Patients Recently Hospitalized With Acute Heart Failure: The EJECTION-HF Randomized Phase 4 Trial

This study sought to measure the impact on all-cause death or readmission of adding center-based exercise training (ET) to disease management programs for patients with a recent acute heart failure (HF) hospitalization. ET is recommended for patients with HF, but evidence is based mainly on ET as a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:JACC. Heart failure 2018-02, Vol.6 (2), p.143-152
Hauptverfasser: Mudge, Alison M, Denaro, Charles P, Scott, Adam C, Meyers, Deborah, Adsett, Julie A, Mullins, Robert W, Suna, Jessica M, Atherton, John J, Marwick, Thomas H, Scuffham, Paul, O'Rourke, Peter
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This study sought to measure the impact on all-cause death or readmission of adding center-based exercise training (ET) to disease management programs for patients with a recent acute heart failure (HF) hospitalization. ET is recommended for patients with HF, but evidence is based mainly on ET as a single intervention in stable outpatients. A randomized, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessor, enrolling adult participants with HF discharged from 5 hospitals in Queensland, Australia. All participants received HF-disease management program plus supported home exercise program; intervention participants were offered 24 weeks of supervised center-based ET. Primary outcome was all-cause 12-month death or readmission. Pre-planned subgroups included age (40%), and exercise adherence. Between May 2008 and July 2013, 278 participants (140 intervention, 138 control) were enrolled: 98 (35.3%) age ≥70 years, 71 (25.5%) females, and 62 (23.3%) with a left ventricular ejection fraction of >40%. There were no adverse events associated with ET. There was no difference in primary outcome between groups (84 of 140 [60.0%] intervention vs. 90 of 138 [65.2%] control; p = 0.37), but a trend toward greater benefit in participants age 
ISSN:2213-1787
DOI:10.1016/j.jchf.2017.11.016