Cardiorespiratory Exercise Intensity Prescription in Cardiovascular Rehabilitation: Do Updated Guideline Recommendations Reflect Real Individual Effort Responses?
Clicks: 3
ID: 316932
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #179 of 196 articles by views in european journal of preventive cardiology
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 196 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate how accurately the updated AHA/AACVPR Scientific Statement prescribes moderate-intensity exercise based on percentage of heart rate reserve (%HRR), by comparing it with heart rate (HR) at ventilatory thresholds in patients with cardiometabolic disease (CMD). METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study included 2,554 individuals from 12 centres across nine countries. HR at the first and second ventilatory thresholds (VT1, VT2), obtained by cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), was compared with HR estimated from the guideline-defined moderate-intensity range (40-59% HRR). Agreement was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis, calibration using Passing-Bablok regression, and prediction error using mean absolute error. RESULTS: HR at VT1 closely approximated the lower limit (40% HRR), with minimal bias and a mean absolute error of 6.4 bpm. In contrast, HR at VT2 was substantially higher than the upper limit (59% HRR), with a negative bias (-11.4 bpm) and greater prediction error (mean absolute error of 12.0 bpm). Calibration analysis showed minor deviation at VT1 but marked systematic and proportional bias at VT2, indicating miscalibration at higher intensities. These findings were consistent across subgroup analyses. CONCLUSION: The AHA/AACVPR %HRR-based recommendations accurately reflect the lower boundary of moderate-intensity exercise but underestimate the transition to higher intensities. Aligning %HRR-based prescriptions with CPET-derived physiological thresholds are likely to improve the precision and effectiveness of exercise prescription in cardiac rehabilitation, while also strengthening methodological rigor and supporting more accurate interpretation of research findings.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7164166053
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Juliana Goulart Prata Oliveira Milani, Maurício Milani, Flavio D’Ascenzi, Fabrício Braga, Anderson Donelli da Silveira, Graziella França Bernardelli Cipriano, Felipe Machado, Matthias Wilhelm, Thimo Marcin, Luna Cavigli, Charly Keytsman, Maarten Falter, Véronique Cornelissen, Kenneth Verboven, Dominique Hansen, Gerson Cipriano |
| Journal | european journal of preventive cardiology |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/eurjpc/zwag311
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.