4.3 Review

Impact of physical performance on prognosis among patients with heart failure: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 76, Issue 2, Pages 139-146

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jjcc.2020.02.022

Keywords

Physical performance; Heart failure; Meta-analysis; Secondary prevention

Funding

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), KAKENHI, Japan [JP18K17715]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: This study aimed to clarify the relationship between physical performance and prognosis of patients with heart failure using a meta-analysis given the inconsistencies in published studies regarding the same. Methods: A total of 22 studies with 10,368 patients were included in this review. Hazard ratios were used for analysis, while meta-analysis was performed using the inverse-variance method. Among all physical performance tests reported in the literature, the six-minute walk distance (6MD) test was most frequently used. However, short physical performance battery (SPPB) and walking speed were more frequently used as outcomes among studies investigating patients with a higher mean age. Results: The results of our meta-analysis showed that 6MD cut-off values were significantly associated with mortality [hazard ratio (HR), 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.48-2.83; p < 0.001] and cardiovascular disease (HR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.68-2.83; p < 0.001). Although a number of studies have also reported on the relationship between other physical performance tests and prognosis, meta-analysis could not be performed. Our results revealed that physical performance was strongly correlated with prognosis among patients with heart failure. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis showed a strong relationship between 6MD and prognosis. However, studies investigating more elderly patients have tended to more frequently utilize walking speed and SPPB as outcomes. (C) 2020 Japanese College of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available