The study showed that, to maintain exercise tolerance and lower re-hospitalisation rate after hospital-based CR in CAD patients, a physical activity telemonitoring program might be an effective intervention.

Aims Vent‐HeFT is a multicentre randomized trial designed to investigate the potential additive benefits of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on aerobic training (AT) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods and results Forty‐three CHF patients with a mean age of 58 ± 12 years, peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2) 17.9 ± 5 mL/kg/min, and LVEF 29.5 ± 5% were randomized to an AT/IMT group (n = 21) or to an AT/SHAM group (n = 22) in a 12‐week exercise programme. AT involved 45 min of ergometer training at 70–80% of maximum heart rate, three times a week for both groups. In the AT/IMT group, IMT was performed at 60% of sustained maximal inspiratory pressure (SPImax) while in the AT/SHAM group it was performed at 10% of SPImax, using a computer biofeedback trainer for 30 min, three times a week. At baseline and at 3 months, patients were evaluated for exercise capacity, lung function, inspiratory muscle strength (PImax) and work capacity (SPImax), quality of life (QoL), LVEF and LV diameter, dyspnoea, C‐reactive protein (CRP), and NT‐proBNP. IMT resulted in a significantly higher benefit in SPImax (P = 0.02), QoL (P = 0.002), dyspnoea (P = 0.004), CRP (P = 0.03), and NT‐proBNP (P = 0.004). In both AT/IMT and AT/SHAM groups PImax (P < 0.001, P = 0.02), peak VO2 (P = 0.008, P = 0.04), and LVEF (P = 0.005, P = 0.002) improved significantly; however, without an additional benefit for either of the groups. Conclusion This randomized multicentre study demonstrates that IMT combined with aerobic training provides additional benefits in functional and serum biomarkers in patients with moderate CHF. These findings advocate for application of IMT in cardiac rehabilitation programmes.

Aims In the rehabilitation of cardiovascular disease patients a correct determination of the endurance-type exercise intensity is important to generate health benefits and preserve medical safety. It remains to be assessed whether the guideline-based exercise intensity domains are internally consistent and agree with physiological responses to exercise in cardiovascular disease patients. Methods A total of 272 cardiovascular disease patients without pacemaker executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test on bike (peak respiratory gas exchange ratio >1.09), to assess peak heart rate (HRpeak), oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and cycling power output (Wpeak). The first and second ventilatory threshold (VT1 and VT2, respectively) was determined and extrapolated to %VO2peak, %HRpeak, %heart rate reserve (%HRR) and %Wpeak for comparison with guideline-based exercise intensity domains. Results VT1 was noted at 62 ± 10% VO2peak, 75 ± 10% HRpeak, 42 ± 14% HRR and 47 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %VO2peak and %HRpeak) or low intensity exercise domain (for %Wpeak and %HRR). VT2 was noted at 84 ± 9% VO2peak, 88 ± 8% HRpeak, 74 ± 15% HRR and 76 ± 11% Wpeak, corresponding to the high intensity exercise domain (for %HRR and %Wpeak) or very hard exercise domain (for %HRpeak and %VO2peak). At best (when using %Wpeak) in only 63% and 72% of all patients VT1 and VT2, respectively, corresponded to the same guideline-based exercise intensity domain, but this dropped to about 48% and 52% at worst (when using %HRR and %HRpeak, respectively). In particular, the patient’s VO2peak related to differently elicited guideline-based exercise intensity domains ( P < 0.05). Conclusion The guideline-based exercise intensity domains for cardiovascular disease patients seem inconsistent, thus reiterating the need for adjustment.

In early aerobic endurance training intervention in patients with coronary artery disease, additional low-intensity resistance muscle training contributes to a greater increase in blood high-density lipid cholesterol content, and tends to affect lean tissue mass.

No abstract