Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Inspiratory muscle training as an adjunct to standard cardiac rehabilitation in patients with LVEF < 50%: a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImpaired inspiratory muscle strength is prevalent in heart failure (HF). Despite standard aerobic and resistance training, patients often experience residual exercise intolerance. Adding inspiratory muscle training (IMT) appears promising, but its aprecise additive value remains unclear, particularly in contemporary cohorts with LVEF < 50%.
methodsWe randomized 65 HF patients (LVEF < 50%) to standard aerobic and resistance training (AR group, n = 32; 60 min/session) or AR plus IMT (ARIS strategy, n = 33; 90 min/session). Both protocols prescribed 36 sessions (3 sessions/week for 12 weeks). The primary outcome was the change in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) Overall Summary Score. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle.
resultsFull completion of all 36 prescribed sessions was achieved by 53.1% (AR) and 57.6% (ARIS) of patients, yielding an actual time-adjusted training density of 2.38 and 2.53 sessions/week, respectively. In the primary outcome analysis, the ARIS strategy demonstrated greater KCCQ Overall Summary Score improvement (between-group difference: +6.3 points; P = 0.006), exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 5 points. The ARIS strategy also yielded significantly greater increases in 6-minute walk distance (+ 33.9 m; P = 0.016) and maximal inspiratory pressure (+ 2.0 kPa; P < 0.001). Regarding cardiac structure, no significant between-group differences were observed for changes in LVEF (P = 0.818) or left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) (P = 0.990).
conclusionsIn HF patients (LVEF < 50%), the extended multimodality ARIS strategy provides clinically significant improvements in quality of life and functional capacity compared to standard training. These incremental benefits likely stem from the combined addition of IMT and higher exercise volume, occurring without significant between-group differences in macro-structural cardiac remodeling. Adequately powered studies are needed to confirm efficacy in the HFmrEF subgroup.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2500108124. Retrospectively registered on 25 August 2025.
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.