4.5 Article

Effects of Tai Chi training on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEART FAILURE
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 316-323

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfs170

Keywords

Heart failure; Tai Chi; Exercise capacity; Quality of life; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim Whether Tai Chi (TC) is effective in the cardiac rehabilitation of patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis to examine the effects of TC on exercise capacity and quality of life (QoL) in CHF patients. Methods and results PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched (up to May 2012) for relevant studies. Studies including participants with reduced left ventricular systolic function (ejection fraction <= 45%) were selected. Interventions considered were TC with or without comparisons (education or usual care). Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I-2 test. Four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 242) met the inclusion criteria. TC significantly improved QoL (WMD -14.54 points; 95% CI -23.45 to -5.63). TC was not associated with a significant reduction in N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (WMD -61.16 pg/mL; 95% CI -179.27 to 56.95), systolic blood pressure (WMD -1.06 mmHg; 95% CI -13.76 to 11.63), diastolic blood pressure (WMD -0.08 mmHg; 95% CI -3.88 to 3.73), improved 6 min walking distance (WMD 46.73 m; 95% CI -1.62 to 95.09), or peak oxygen uptake (WMD 0.19 mL/kg/min; 95% CI -0.74 to 1.13). Conclusions TC may improve QoL in patients with CHF and could be considered for inclusion in cardiac rehabilitation programmes. However, there is currently a lack of evidence to support TC altering other important clinical outcomes. Further larger RCTs are urgently needed to investigate the effects of TC.

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