Trial reportArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2020
Controlled Study of Central Hemodynamic Changes in Inspiratory Exercise with Different Loads in Heart Failure.
Trial report in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- The impact of threshold-loaded inspiratory muscle training and respiratory biofeedback on preserving inspiratory muscle strength and vital capacity after CABG: a randomized clinical trial.American journal of cardiovascular disease · 2024Article
- Unraveling the Role of Respiratory Muscle Metaboloreceptors under Inspiratory Training in Patients with Heart Failure.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Review
- Inspiratory Muscle Training at Different Intensities in Heart Failure: Are There Differences in Central Hemodynamic Changes?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Inspiratory muscle weakness contributes to exercise intolerance and decreased quality of life in patients with heart failure. Studies with inspiratory muscle training show improvement in inspiratory muscle strength, functional capacity and quality of life. However, little is known about the central hemodynamic response (CHR) during inspiratory exercise (IE). Objective To evaluate CHR in a single IE session with different loads (placebo, 30% and 60%) in heart failure. Methods Randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, functional class II and III. Twenty patients aged 65 ± 11 years completed a single session of inspiratory exercise, in 3 cycles of 15 minutes, with a 1-hour washout, involving loads of 30% (C30), 60% (C60) and placebo, using a linear load resistor (PowerBreathe Light). The noninvasive hemodynamic study was performed by cardiothoracic bioimpedance (Niccomo™ CardioScreen®). Statistical analysis was performed with Student's t-test and Pearson's correlation, and P≤0.05 was considered significant. Results An increase in heart rate (HR) was observed with C30 (64 ± 15 vs 69 ± 15 bpm; p = 0.005) and C60 (67 ± 14 vs 73 ± 14 bpm, p = 0.002). A decrease was observed in systolic volume (SV) with C30 (73 ± 26 vs 64 ± 20 ml; p = 0.004). Cardiac output (CO), on its turn, increased only with C60 (4.6 ± 1.5 vs 5.3 ± 1.7 l/min; p = -0.001). Conclusion When using the 60% load, in a single IE session, changes in CHR were observed. HR and CD increased, as did the Borg scales and subjective sensation of dyspnea. The 30% load reduced the SV. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(4):656-663).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.