4.5 Article

Habitual physical activity levels of adults with heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

HEART
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2022-321943

Keywords

heart failure; meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the habitual physical activity levels of patients with heart failure (HF) and the quality of reporting of device-assessed physical activity. The results showed that patients with HF have low levels of physical activity, which has implications for targeting physical activity interventions in this population.
ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify habitual physical activity (PA) levels of patients with heart failure (HF) and assess the quality of reporting of device-assessed PA. MethodsEight electronic databases were searched up to 17 November 2021. Data on the study and population characteristics, method of PA measurement and PA metrics were extracted. A random-effects meta-analysis (restricted maximum likelihood with Knapp-Hartung SE adjustment) was conducted. ResultsSeventy-five studies were included in the review (n=7775 patients with HF). Meta-analysis was restricted to mean steps per day, encompassing 27 studies (n=1720 patients with HF). Pooled mean steps per day were 5040 (95% CI: 4272 to 5807). The 95% prediction interval for mean steps per day in a future study was 1262 to 8817. Meta-regression at the study level revealed that a 10-year increment in the mean age of patients was associated with 1121 fewer steps per day (95% CI: 258 to 1984). ConclusionsPatients with HF are a low-active population. These findings have implications for the way in which PA is targeted in patients with HF, and interventions should focus on addressing the age-related decline observed as well as increasing PA to improve HF symptoms and quality of life. PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020167786.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available