Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 1/2020

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Research article

Physical functional performance and prognosis in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Iván José Fuentes-Abolafio, Brendon Stubbs, Luis Miguel Pérez-Belmonte, María Rosa Bernal-López, Ricardo Gómez-Huelgas, Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas

Erschienen in: BMC Cardiovascular Disorders | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Patients with Heart Failure (HF) show impaired functional capacities which have been related to their prognosis. Moreover, physical functional performance in functional tests has also been related to the prognosis in patients with HF. Thus, it would be useful to investigate how physical functional performance in functional tests could determine the prognosis in patients with HF, because HF is the leading cause of hospital admissions for people older than 65 years old. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summarise and synthesise the evidence published about the relationship between physical functional performance and prognosis in patients with HF, as well as assess the risk of bias of included studies and the level of evidence per outcome.

Methods

Major electronic databases, such as PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, Web of Science, were searched from inception to March 2020 for observational longitudinal cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) examining the relationship between physical functional performance and prognosis in patients with HF.

Results

44 observational longitudinal cohort studies with a total of 22,598 patients with HF were included. 26 included studies reported a low risk of bias, and 17 included studies showed a moderate risk of bias. Patients with poor physical functional performance in the Six Minute Walking Test (6MWT), in the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and in the Gait Speed Test showed worse prognosis in terms of larger risk of hospitalisation or mortality than patients with good physical functional performance. However, there was a lack of homogeneity regarding which cut-off points should be used to stratify patients with poor physical functional performance from patients with good physical functional performance.

Conclusion

The review includes a large number of studies which show a strong relationship between physical functional performance and prognosis in patients with HF. Most of the included studies reported a low risk of bias, and GRADE criteria showed a low and a moderate level of evidence per outcome.
Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12872-020-01725-5.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Abkürzungen
HF
Heart failure
6MWT
Six minute walking test
SPPB
Short physical performance battery
DALYs
Disability-adjusted life-years
TUG
Timed up and go test
PECOS
Participant, exposure, comparator, outcome, study design
PRISMA
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement
PROSPERO
International prospective register of systematic reviews
NYHA
New York heart association
OR
Odds ratio
HR
Hazard ratio
NOS
The Newcastle Ottawa scale
GRADE
Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation
HFrEF
Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
HFpEF
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction
CI
Confidence interval
m
Meters

Background

Cardiovascular diseases continue to be the leading cause of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) due to non-communicable diseases and the leading cause of death [13]. Within cardiovascular diseases, Heart Failure (HF) is the only cardiovascular disease which is increasing in incidence and prevalence due to the aging of the world population, because its prevalence increases with age [48]. In addition, heart failure constitutes the most important hospital diagnosis in older adults, is the leading cause of hospital admissions for people older than 65 years old and contributes to the increase of medical care costs [59].
Heart Failure is characterised by a weak myocardium with decreased cardiac output that is unable to meet the body metabolic demands [46, 8, 1012]. There are several functional symptoms that appear in patients with HF, such as reduced aerobic capacity, decreased muscle strength, low weekly physical activity and exercise intolerance, which are accompanied by fatigue and dyspnea symptoms [1217]. Furthermore, patients with HF show impaired functional capacities, experience a declined ability to carry out their activities of daily living and suffer a reduced quality of life [12, 14, 17]. It has also been reported that patients with chronic HF show a slower gait speed than healthy subjects of the same age [18]. The maximal aerobic capacity has been inversely correlated to the severity of HF and has been directly correlated to the prognosis and the life expectancy [14, 19, 20]. Similarly, the lower extremities muscle mass and muscle strength have also been related to long-term survival in patients with HF [14, 21].
Some functional tests have been used to predict prognosis in patients with HF. Thus, the 6-min walk test (6-MWT) has been proposed as a simple, inexpensive, safe and reproducible exercise test to assess functional capacity in patients with HF, which could also predict the prognosis of patients with HF based on distance walked [12, 2224]. The Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) provides a useful and indirect measure of muscle functional capacity [12]. Moreover, the SPPB and the Timed Up and Go test (TUG) could be used to assess physical or functional frailty in patients with HF, which has been associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality in chronic heart failure [25, 26]. The utility of Gait Speed ​​has also been shown to predict functional independence loss, cardiovascular disease, hospitalisation, and mortality in older adults [2731]. The 6-MWT measures the distance which patients can walk during 6 min [32]. The test is usually conducted in a closed corridor of 30 m where two marks are placed on the ground at a distance of 30 m, and patients walk from one end to the other, during 6 min [32]. The SPPB includes 3 tests: balance (feet together, semitándem and tandem during 10 s each), gait speed (4 m) and standing up and sitting on a chair 5 times. Each test is scored from 0 (worst performance) to 4 (best performance). The total score for the whole battery that is the addition of the 3 tests and ranges from 0 to 12 [33]. In the TUG test patients are sat down in a chair, and at the order to “go”, they stand up from the chair, walk 3 m until a reach a line that is on the floor. Then, patients should turn, return to the chair walking and sit again [34].
Hence, it would be necessary to conduct a synthesis of evidence that explores the relationship between the physical functional performance in functional tests and the prognosis in patients with HF. A systematic review may permit the formation of firm conclusions through an exhaustive synthesis of data [35]. Thus, the aim of this study was to answer the following PECOS (P, participant; E, exposure; C, comparator; O, outcome; S, study design) question through a systematic review of the literature on observational longitudinal cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) (S): Do older patients with HF (P), who have poor physical functional performance in some functional tests, such as 6-MWT, SPPB, TUG or Gait Speed (E), show a worse prognosis (O) than those patients with good physical functional performance (C)?

Methods

The Systematic Review and Meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [36]. The systematic review protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42020177427).

Data sources and search strategy

Two independent reviewers (IJF-A and AIC-V) conducted a systematic search using relevant search terms that were developed from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords from other similar studies from inception to March, 24th 2020 using optimised search strategies in the following electronic databases: PubMed, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro, Web of Science (Additional file 1). A manual search of relevant eligible studies, to select any studies missed during the electronic search, was also conducted using cross-references identified in the reference lists within both original and review articles. The grey literature databases, such as New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report, Open Grey and Google Scholar [37] were examined to identify any relevant unpublished data. References were exported, and duplicates were removed using the Mendeley desktop V.1.19.2 citation management software.

Eligibility criteria

The aforementioned PECOS framework was followed to determine which studies were included in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Each study had to meet the following inclusion criteria:
1.
Observational longitudinal cohort studies (prospective or retrospective)(S) examining whether older patients with HF (P), who have a poor physical functional performance in some functional tests, such as 6-MWT, SPPB, TUG or Gait Speed (E), show worse prognosis, assessed as larger risk of hospitalisation or mortality, (O) than those patients with good physical functional performance (C).
 
2.
No restriction was applied on the participants’ age, ethnicity, gender, HF diagnosis or on the New York Heart Association (NYHA) scale score.
 
3.
No restriction was applied on the language.
 
4.
Studies recruiting participants from any setting (general population, primary or secondary care).
 
5.
Studies providing Odds Ratio (OR) or Hazard Ratio (HR) data.
 
The exclusion criteria were as follows:
1.
All studies that did not include an observational longitudinal cohort design (e.g cross-sectional studies, randomised controlled trials).
 
2.
Studies exploring the prognosis value of functional tests in patients with other cardiovascular diseases different from HF.
 
3.
Studies examining the relationship between physical functional performance in functional tests and other outcomes different from mortality or hospitalisation.
 
4.
Studies investigating the prognosis value of physical activity assessed as daily activity, exercise time per week or physical activity scales.
 

Study selection

Two independent reviewers (IJF-A and AIC-V) carried out the screening of titles and abstracts to detect potentially relevant records and also excluded those documents that were not original papers. The same reviewers conducted the screening of those articles that met all inclusion criteria. A short checklist was carried out and followed in order to select the relevant studies (Additional file 2). In case of disagreements, the articles were always included.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers (IJF-A and AIC-V) identified the following relevant data from each study: study details (first author and year of publication), region, setting, study design, sample size, functional tests with their cut-off points and characteristics of participants (mean age, %males), HF diagnosis, follow-up, outcome and main results. When necessary, an email was sent to the original authors to try to get OR or HR data that was not included in their original articles.

Quality assessment

The same two reviewers (IJF-A and AIC-V) assessed the risk of bias of the included observational longitudinal cohort studies using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) [38]. The NOS has been decribed as a reliable and valid tool for assessing the quality of observational longitudinal cohort studies [38, 39].

Data synthesis and analysis

To assess the overall quality and the strength of the evidence per outcome, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used [40, 41]. Two researchers (IJF-A and AIC-V) judged whether these factors were present for each outcome reported at least in two studies. Meta-analysis was conducted for each outcome reported in two or more studies, as long as studies assessed the same outcome with the same functional test and the same measurement unit, that is, HR or OR. Outcomes not included in the meta-analysis were reported using a descriptive quantitative analysis. Thus, the most relevant summary measure with the 95% Confidence Interval (95%CI) for each study was provided. The most relevant summary measure with its 95%CI was extracted of adjusted multivariate models when it was possible. In each meta-analysis it was decided to use the inverse variance as statistical method, fixed effects as analysis model and the HR or OR as effect measures. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistic [42, 43]. Values of > 25% is considered as low heterogeneity, > 50% moderate heterogeneity, and > 75% high heterogeneity [42, 43]. When heterogeneity was moderate or high, random effects were used as analysis model. Moreover, when meta-analyses included patients with HF with reduced (HFrEF) and preserved (HFpEF) ejection fraction or meta-analyses revealed high heterogeneity, as long as the outcome was reported by three or more studies, sensitivity analyses were conducted including studies dealing only with patients with HFrEF because the inclusion of patients with different ejection fraction could be a source of heterogeneity or could bias the results. The mean effect sizes, 95% CI, and I2 were calculated for each outcome and used to create forest plots for visualization of each meta-analysis using the Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.3 [44].

Results

Characteristics of included studies

A total of 3881 citations were identified through electronic databases, with 263 additional studies identified through Grey Literature Sources and 14 studies identified through manual search. One thousand six hundred seventy-one titles and abstracts were screened and 110 original papers were assessed. The number of studies retrieved from each database and the number of studies excluded in each screening phase are shown in Fig. 1. The full reference of excluded studies in the second stage (n = 66) is reported in Additional file 3. The conflict of interest of included studies is shown in Additional file 4. Of these, 44 observational longitudinal cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) with a total of 22,598 patients with HF were included. Twenty of the included studies (45.45%) reported only patients with HFrEF. Twenty one of the included studies (47.72%) showed patients with HFrEF and HFpEF. The 6MWT was the most used test (n = 33) followed by the Gait Speed test (n = 8) and the SPPB (n = 4). The characteristics of the included observational longitudinal cohort studies are reported in Table 1.
Table 1
Characteristics of included studies
Study (first author and year)
Region
Setting
Design
Study Characteristics: Groups, Sample Size (%Male), Age
Heart Failure Diagnosis
Six Minutes Walking Test (6MWT)
 Brenyo et al. [45], 2012.
United States, Canada, and Europe
Clinical Care Setting
(110 Secondary Care Centres)
Retrospective
High Performance.
> 350 m: n = 1021 (82%). 62.5 ± 10.5 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 350 m: n = 744 (66.4%). 66.8 ± 10.7 years.
HFrEF
LVEF < 30%
(29 ± 3%)
 Ferreira et al. [46], 2019
11 European Countries
Clinical Care Setting
(69 Secondary Care Centres)
Prospective
High Performance.
> 360 m: n = 537 (86.6%). 62 ± 11.0 years.
Middle Performance.
241-360 m: n = 586 (77.3%). 67 ± 12.0 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 240 m: n = 591 (63%). 73 ± 10.0 years.
HFrEF
LVEF = 30% (25–38%)
 Wegrzynowska-Teodorczyk et al. [47], 2013.
Poland
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 243 (100%). 60 ± 11.0 years.
High Performance.
> 468 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 468 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 45% (29 ± 8%)
 Bittner et al. [48], 1993.
United States, Canada, and Belgium
Clinical Care Setting (20 Tertiary Care Hospitals)
Prospective
All: n = 898 (78%). 59 ± 12.0 years.
High Performance.
≥ 450: n = 201. NS.
Middle Performance.
375–450: n = 215. NS.
Low Performance.
300–375: n = 241. NS.
Very Low Performance.
< 300: n = 176. NS.
Congestive HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 45%
 Arslan et al. [49], 2007.
Turkey
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 43 (86%). 62 ± 10.0 years.
High Performance.
> 300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 40% (0.35 ± 0.06%)
 Lee et al. [50], 2006.
Singapore (Asian)
Clinical Care Setting (Primary and Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 668 (67.4%). 66.1 ± 12.3 years.
High Performance.
> 370 m: n = 87. NS.
Middle Performance.
311-370 m: n = 84. NS.
Low Performance.
231-310 m: n = 87. NS.
Very Low Performance.
75-230 m: n = 128. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF < 40%
 Curtis et al. [51], 2004.
United States and Canada
Clinical Care Setting (39 Secondary Care Centres)
Prospective
High Performance.
> 400 m: n = 131 (91.6%). 60.0 ± 11.0 years.
Middle Performance.
301-400 m: n = 210 (76.7%). 63.4 ± 10.8 years.
Low Performance.
201-300 m: n = 118 (61.9%). 66.8 ± 10.4 years.
Very Low Performance.
≤ 200 m: n = 82 (54.9%). 70.9 ± 12.8 years
HFrEF and HFpEF
LVEF < 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF > 45% (HFpEF)
 Ingle et al. [52], 2014.
United Kingdom
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 1667 (75%). 72 (65–77) years.
High Performance.
> 360 m: n = NS. 64.9 ± 10.6 years.
Middle Performance.
241-360 m: n = NS. 71.3 ± 8.8 years.
Low Performance.
46-240 m: n = NS. 72.9 ± 9.6 years.
Very Low Performance.
≤ 45 m: n = NS. 72.4 ± 10.6 years.
HFrEF
LVEF < 45%
 Alahdab et al. [53], 2009.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Tertiary Care Hospital)
Prospective
High Performance.
> 200 m: n = 103 (75.7%). 50.4 ± 12.2 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 200 m: n = 95 (49.5%). 59.4 ± 12.2 years.
Acute
Decompensated HFrEF and HFpEF
LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF > 40% (HFpEF)
 Mangla et al. [54], 2013.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 900 (53%). 63.6 years.
High Performance.
> 189 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 189 m. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF > 40% (HFpEF)
 Hasin et al. [55], 2012.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Retrospective
High Performance.
≥ 300 m: n = 45 (87%). 65 (53–69) years.
Low Performance.
< 300 m: n = 20 (75%). 68 (59–74) years.
HFrEF
LVEF < 40% (20–31%)
 Passantino et al. [56], 2006.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n: 476 (79%). 63.6 ± 11.9 years.
High Performance.
≥ 300 m: n = 301. NS.
Low Performance.
< 300 m: n = 175. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF < 40% (29.8 ± 9.7)
 Howie-Esquivel et al. [57], 2008.
USA
An Academic
Medical Centre
Prospective
High Performance.
> 200 m: n = 21 (73.3%). 61.7 ± 17.3 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 200 m: n = 23 (26.7%). 57.6 ± 20.0 years.
Descompensated HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 40% (HFpEF)
 Zotter-Tufaro et al. [58], 2015.
Austria
Not Reported
Prospective
High Performance.
> 300 m: n = 72 (31.95%). 67.8 ± 9.1 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m: n = 70 (28.6%). 73.1 ± 7.4 years.
HFpEF
LVEF ≥ 50%
 Boxer et al. [59], 2010.
USA
University of Connecticut Health Centre
Prospective
All: n = 60 (71.66%). 78 ± 12.0 years.
High Performance.
> 300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 40%
 Ingle et al. [60], 2014
United
Kingdom
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 600 (75%). 77.8 (71.5–83.6) years.
High Performance.
>  365 m. n = NS.
Middle Performance.
271–365 m. n = NS.
Low Performance.
61–270 m. n = NS.
Very Low Performance.
<  60 m. n = NS.
HFrEF
LVEF < 45%
 Guazzi et al. [61], 2009.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 253 (78.66%). 61.9 ± 10.1 years.
High Performance.
>  300 m. n = 175. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. n = 78. NS
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 50%
(HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 50%
(HFpEF)
 McCabe et al. [62], 2017.
USA
An University Hospital
Prospective
All: n = 71 (57.7%). 52.6 ± 12.3 years.
High Performance.
>  300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF = 24.4 ± 13.5
 Vegh et al. [63], 2014.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 164 (77%). 67.3 ± 12.9 years.
High Performance.
≥ 350 m. NS.
Middle Performance.
280-350 m. NS.
Low Performance.
<  280 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF = 25% ± 7%.
 Roul et al. [64], 1998.
France
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 121 (81.8%). 59 ± 11 years.
High Performance.
>  300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF = 29.6% ± 13%
 Frankenstein et al. [65], 2008.
Germany
Specialised HF clinic at the University of Heidelberg
Prospective
All: n = 1035 (80.2%) 54.9 ± 11.5 years.
Mean 6MWT: 459 m ± 113 m
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 40%
 Mene-Afejuku et al. [66], 2017.
Nigeria
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 100 (NS). 64.02 ± 12.88 years.
High Performance.
314.66 m ± 48.17 m. n = 59 (NS). 66.32 ± 12.29 years.
Low Performance.
260.59 m ± 66.65 m. n = 41 (NS). 61.71 ± 13.46 years.
HHF (HFrEF and HFpEF)
LVEF ≤ 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF > 40% (HFpEF)
 Ingle et al. [67], 2007
United
Kingdom
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 1592 (60%). 74 (67–80) years.
High Performance.
≥ 421 m. NS.
Middle Performance.
346–420 m. NS.
Low Performance.
241–345 m. NS.
Very Low Performance.
≥ 240 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 45%
 Rostagno et al. [68], 2003.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 214 (93%). 53.7 (29–70) years.
High Performance.
≥ 450 m. NS.
Middle Performance.
300–450 m. NS.
Low Performance.
<  300 m. NS.
Congestive HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 50% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 50% (HFpEF)
 Cahalin et al. [69], 1996.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 45 (89%). 49 ± 8 years.
High Performance.
≥ 300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
<  300 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF = 20 ± 6
 Frankenstein et al. [70], 2008.
Germany
Specialised HF clinic at the University of Heidelberg
Prospective
All: n = 1069 (80.6%) 55.2 ± 11.7 years.
Mean 6MWT: 456 m ± 114 m
HFrEF
LVEF = 29% ± 10%
 Rubim et al. [71], 2006.
Brazil
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 176 (67%). 58.32 ± 12.7 years.
Mean 6MWT: 521.11 m ± 76.1 m.
High Performance.
≥ 520 m. NS.
Low Performance.
<  520 m. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF = 34.91%
± 12.4%
 Kanagala et al. [72], 2019.
United Kingdom
Clinical Care Setting (Tertiary Care Hospital)
Prospective
All: n = 140 (49%). 73 ± 9.0 years.
Mean 6MWT: 180 m (120 m–250 m)
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF > 50%
 Zugck et al. [73], 2001.
Germany
Medical Clinic of the University of
Heidelberg
Prospective
All: n = 208 (82%). 54 ± 10 years.
Mean 6MWT: 455 m ±
107 m (170 m–692 m)
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 40%
Cahalin et al. [74], 2013.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 258 (NS). 63 ± 8.7 years.
High Performance.
>  300 m. NS.
Low Performance.
≤ 300 m. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 50% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥5 0%
(HFpEF)
 Reibis et al. [75], 2010.
Germany
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 1346 (73%). 64 ± 10
years.
Mean 6MWT: 350.1 m ± 148.6 m
HFrEF
LVEF < 45%
 Castel et al. [76], 2009.
Spain
Not Reported
Retrospective
All: n = 155 (82%). 68.6 ± 7.8 years.
High Performance.
>  400 m. NS.
Middle Performance.
310-400 m. NS.
Low Performance.
225-310 m. NS.
Very Low Performance.
<  225 m. NS.
HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 45%
 Kamiya et al. [77], 2017.
Japan
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care Centre)
Retrospective
All: n = 1474 (68%). 72.2 ± 7.1 years.
High Performance.
≥ 446 m: n = 485 (84%). 68.5 ± 5.6 years.
Middle Performance.
342-445 m: n = 497 (69%). 71.5 ± 6.3 years.
Low Performance.
≤ 341 m: n = 492 (52%). 76.5 ± 7.0 years.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF = 52.7 ± 15.4
Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)
 García et al. [78], 2019.
Spain
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
High Performance.
SPPB > 7: n = 37 (54.1%). 83 ± 5.7 years.
Low Performance.
SPPB≤ 7: n = 49 (30.6%). 86 ± 6.7 years.
Acute HF
 Hornsby et al. [79], 2019.
USA
University of Michigan
Prospective
High Performance.
SPPB≥ 10 points: n = 22 (55%). 64 ± 13.0 years.
Middle Performance.
SPPB = 7–9 points: n = 53 (42%). 67 ± 12.0 years.
Low Performance.
SPPB≤ 6 points: n = 39 (36%). 72 ± 13.0 years.
HFpEF HF
LVEF ≥ 50%
 Chiarantini et al. [80], 2010.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 157 (50.3%). 80 ± 0.5 years.
High Performance.
SPPB = 9–12: n = 32. NS.
Middle Performance.
SPPB = 5–8: n = 45. NS.
Low Performance.
SPPB = 1–4: n = 33. NS.
Very Low Performance.
SPPB = 0: n = 47. NS.
Descompensated HFrEF and HFpEF
LVEF < 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 45% (HFpEF)
 Zaharias et al. [81], 2014.
USA
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care)
Prospective
All: n = 32 (78.1%). 58.2 ± 13.6 years.
High Performance.
SPPB = 10–12: n = 7. NS.
Middle Performance.
SPPB = 7–9: n = 8. NS.
Low Performance.
SPPB = 4–6: n = 12. NS.
Very Low Performance.
SPPB = 0–3: n = 4. NS.
HFrEF and HFpEF
LVEF < 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 40% (HFpEF)
Gait Speed (GS)
 Lo et al. [82], 2015.
USA
Community Based Population
Prospective
High Performance.
GS ≥ 0.8 m/s: n = 553 (59%). 73 ± 5.0 years.
Low Performance.
GS < 0.8 m/s: n = 566 (39%).
76 ± 6.0 years.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 45% (HFpEF)
 Pulignano et al. [83], 2016.
Italy
Clinical Care Setting (7 Secondary Care Centres)
Prospective
High Performance.
GS ≥ 1.0 m/s: n = 88 (64.8%). 76.4 ± 4.8 years.
Middle Performance.
GS = 0.66–0.99 m/s: n = 128 (60.9%). 77.1 ± 4.7 years
Low Performance.
GS ≤ 0.65 m/s: n = 115 (48.7%). 80.2 ± 5.6 years.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 45% (HFpEF)
 Chaudhry et al. [84], 2013.
USA
Not Reported
Prospective
All: n = 758 (49.5%). 79.7 ± 6.2 years.
High Performance.
GS > 0.8 m/s: n = 441. NS.
Low Performance.
GS ≤ 0.8 m/s: n = 317. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 45% (HFpEF)
 Tanaka et al. [85], 2018.
Japan
Kitasato University Hospital
Retrospective
All: n = 603 (62.7%). 74.9 ± 6.2 years.
High Performance.
GS > 1.14 m/s: n = 154. NS.
Middle Performance.
GS = 1.0–1.14 m/s. n = 149. NS.
Low Performance.
GS = 0.82–0.99 m/s. n = 150. NS.
Very Low Performance.
GS < 0.82 m/s: n = 150. NS.
Acute HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 40% (HFpEF)
 Tanaka et al. [86], 2019.
Japan
Kitasato University Hospital
Retrospective
High Performance.
GS ≥ 0.8 m/s: n = 194 (72.7%). 73.1 ± 6.7 years.
Low Performance.
GS < 0.8 m/s: n = 194 (44.8%). 76.5 ± 8.4 years.
Acute HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 40% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 40% (HFpEF)
 Rodríguez-Pascual et al. [87], 2017.
Spain
Clinical Care Setting (6 Secondary Care Centres)
Prospective
High Performance.
GS ≥ 0.65 m/s: n = 211 (47.9%). 84.4 ± 9.4 years.
Low Performance.
GS < 0.65 m/s: n = 286 (32.5%). 85.7 ± 5.1 years.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF ≤ 45% (HFrEF)
LVEF > 45% (HFpEF)
 Vidán et al. [88], 2016.
Spain
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care Centre)
Prospective
All: n = 416 (50.5%). 80.0 ± 6.1 years.
High Performance.
GS ≥ 0.65 m/s. NS.
Low Performance.
GS < 0.65 m/s. NS.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF < 50% (HFrEF)
LVEF ≥ 45% (HFpEF)
LVEF = 43.4% ± 14.7%
 Kamiya et al. [77], 2017.
Japan
Clinical Care Setting (Secondary Care Centre)
Retrospective
All: n = 1474 (68%). 72.2 ± 7.1 years.
High Performance.
GS ≥ 1.17 m/s: n = 489 (82%). 68.7 ± 5.5 years.
Middle Performance.
GS = 0.95–1.160 m/s: n = 489 (67%). 71.8 ± 6.6 years.
Low Performance.
GS ≥ 0.94 m/s: n = 496 (55%). 76.1 ± 7.2 years.
HFpEF and HFrEF
LVEF = 52.7 ± 15.4
m Meters. HF Heart Failure. LVEF Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. NS Not Specified. HFrEF Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (Systolic Heart Failure). HFpEF Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (Diastolic Heart Failure). HHF Hypertensive Heart Failure. SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery. GS Gait Speed

Meta-analyses

The outcomes assessed by each study, as well as the main results, the risk of bias summary and the GRADE summary are shown in Table 2. Forest plots and effect sizes of each meta-analysis can also be seen in Additional file 5.
Table 2
Outcomes, Results, Risk of Bias of Included Studies and Level of Evidence per Outcome according to GRADE Criteria
Study (first author and year)
Functional Test
Follow-Up
Outcomes
Main Results
Risk of Bias
Level of Evidence (GRADE)
 Brenyo et al. [45], 2012.
6MWT
4 years
Incident HF and Mortality
≤ 350 m VS > 350 m
HR = 1.73 95%CI [1.29–2.33]***
Low
Not
Reported
Incident HF and Mortality
Per 100-m decreased
HR = 1.25 95%CI [1.09–1.44]***
All-Cause Mortality
≤ 350 m VS > 350 m
HR = 2.40 95%CI [1.42–4.08]***
Moderate
All-Cause Mortality
Per 100-m decreased
HR = 1.32 95%CI [1.05–1.66]**
 Ferreira et al. [46], 2019.
6MWT
21 months (9–26 months)
Hospitalisation and Mortality
241-360 m VS > 360 m
HR = 1.44 95%CI [1.14–1.80]**
Moderate
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 240 m VS > 360 m
HR = 1.73 95%CI [1.38–2.18]***
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per each 50 m decreased
HR = 1.08 95%CI [1.04–1.11]***
All-Cause Mortality
241-360 m VS > 360 m
HR = 1.49 95%CI [1.08–2.06]**
Moderate
All-Cause Mortality
≤ 240 m VS > 360 m
HR = 2.41 95%CI [1.76–3.29]***
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 50 m decreased
HR = 1.14 95%CI [1.09–1.18]***
 Wegrzynowska-Teodorczyk et al. [47], 2013.
6MWT
1 year
HF Mortality
≤ 468 m VS > 468 m
HR = 3.22 95%CI [1.17–8.86]**
Low
Moderate
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 468 m VS > 468 m
HR = 2.77 95%CI [1.30–5.88]**
Low
3 years
HF Mortality
≤ 468 m VS > 468 m
HR = 2.18 95%CI [1.18–4.03]**
Moderate
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 468 m VS > 468 m
HR = 1.71 95%CI [1.08–2.72]**
Low
 Bittner et al. [48], 1993.
6MWT
1 year (242 ± 82 days)
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 120 m decreased
OR = 1.50 95%CI [1.11–2.03]**
Low
Moderate
HF Hospitalisation
Per each 120 m decreased
OR = 2.60 95%CI [1.78–3.80]***
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per each 120 m decreased
OR = 1.77 95%CI [1.38–2.26]***
Low
All-Cause Mortality
<  300 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 3.7 95%CI [1.44–9.55]**
Moderate
All-Cause Mortality
300-375 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 2.78 95%CI [1.09–7.11]**
All-Cause Mortality
375-450 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 1.42 95%CI [0.50–4.06]*
All-Cause Hospitalisation
<  300 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 14.02 95%CI [4.90–40.14]***
Low
All-Cause Hospitalisation
300-375 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 6.21 95%CI [2.14–18.08]***
All-Cause Hospitalisation
375-450 m VS ≥ 450 m
OR = 1.90 95%CI [0.56–6.42]*
 Arslan et al. [49], 2007.
6MWT
2 years (18 ± 6 months)
HF Mortality
≤ 300 m VS >  300 m
HR = 2.38 95%CI [2.02–5.76]**
Moderate
Moderate
 Lee et al. [50], 2006.
6MWT
36 ± 12 months
Hospitalisation and Mortality
75-230 m VS > 370 m.
OR = 3.5 95%CI [1.1–11.7]**
Low
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
231-310 m VS > 370 m
OR = 3.4 95%CI [1.01–11.5]**
Hospitalisation and Mortality
311-370 m VS > 370 m
OR = 4.9 95%CI [1.5–16.0]**
 Curtis et al. [51], 2004.
6MWT
32 months
All-Cause Mortality
≤ 200 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.59 95%CI [0.88–2.86]*
Low
Moderate
All-Cause Mortality
201-300 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.01 95%CI [0.57–1.79]*
All-Cause Mortality
301-400 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.16 95%CI [0.72–1.88]*
HF Mortality
≤ 200 m VS > 400 m
HR = 2.62 95%CI [1.02–6.74]**
Moderate
HF Mortality
201-300 m VS > 400 m
HR = 0.93 95%CI [0.34–2.55]*
HF Mortality
301-400 m VS > 400 m
HR = 0.86 95%CI [0.35–2.09]*
All-Cause Hospitalisation
≤ 200 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.76 95%CI [1.19–2.60]**
Low
All-Cause Hospitalisation
201-300 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.41 95%CI [1.01–1.99]**
All-Cause Hospitalisation
301-400 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.09 95%CI [0.80–1.47]*
HF Hospitalisation
≤ 200 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.84 95%CI [0.97–3.49]*
Low
HF Hospitalisation
201-300 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.84 95%CI [1.04–3.29]**
HF Hospitalisation
301-400 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.45 95%CI [0.85–2.45]*
 Ingle et al. [52], 2014.
6MWT
5 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 10 m increased.
HR = 0.980 95%CI [0.974–0.985]***
Low
Moderate
 Alahdab et al. [53], 2009.
6MWT
40 months-Mortality
All-Cause Mortality
≤ 200 m VS >  200 m
HR = 2.14 95%CI [1.20–3.81]**
Low
Moderate
40 months-Mortality
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.998 95%CI [0.995–0.999]**
18 months-Hospitali- zation
HF Hospitalisation
≤ 200 m VS >  200 m
HR = 1.62 95%CI [1.10–2.39]**
Low
 Mangla et al. [54], 2013.
6MWT
1080 days
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 189 m VS > 189 m
in HFpEF.
OR = 2.81 95%CI [1.24–6.40]**
Low
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 189 m VS > 189 m in HFrEF.
OR = 1.94 95%CI [1.30–2.90]**
 Hasin et al. [55], 2012.
6MWT
Median 592 days (115–1453 days)
All-Cause Mortality
Per 10 m walked short of 300 m
HR = 1.211 95% CI [1.108–1.322]***
Moderate
Moderate
 Passantino et al. [56], 2006.
6MWT
23.9 months
All-Cause Mortality
<  300 m VS ≥ 300 m
HR = 2.66 95%CI [1.60–4.42]***
Low
Moderate
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 70 m decreased
HR = 2.03 95%CI [1.29–3.18]**
Howie-Esquivel et al. [57], 2008.
6MWT
90 days
HF Hospitalisation
> 200 m
HR = 0.99 95%CI [0.99–1.00]*
High
Low
 Zotter-Tufaro et al. [58], 2015.
6MWT
14.0 ± 10.0 months
Hospitalisation and Mortality
>  300 m VS ≤ 300 m
HR = 0.992 95%CI [0.990–0.995]***
Moderate
Low
 Boxer et al. [59], 2010.
6MWT
4 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 30 m increased
HR = 0.84 95%CI [0.74–0.94]**
Moderate
Moderate
 Ingle et al. [60], 2014.
6MWT
8 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 10 m increased
HR = 0.988 95%CI [0.981–0.995]***
Low
Moderate
 Guazzi et al. [61], 2009.
6MWT
20.4 ± 16.6 months.
Cardiac Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.998 95%CI [0.995–1.001]*
Low
Moderate
 McCabe et al. [62], 2017.
6MWT
30 days
HF Hospitalisation
Per each 30 m increased
OR = 0.84 95% CI [0.71–0.99]**
Moderate
Low
 Vegh et al. [63], 2014.
6MWT
3 years
HF Hospitalisation
≥ 350 m VS < 280 m
HR = 0.61 95% CI [0.44–0.85]**
Moderate
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≥ 350 m VS < 280 m
HR = 0.58 95% CI [0.43–0.80]***
Low
HF Hospitalisation
≥ 402 m VS < 256 m
HR = 0.60 95% CI [0.44–0.82]***
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≥ 402 m VS < 256 m
HR = 0.55 95% CI [0.43–0.75]***
Low
 Roul et al. [64], 1998.
6MWT
1000 days
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 300 m VS > 300 m
Log rank = 6.16 **
Moderate
Low
 Frankenstein et al. [65], 2008.
6MWT
52.9 ± 36.2 months
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.996 95% CI [0.995–0.997]***
Low
Moderate
 Mene-Afejuku et al. [66], 2017.
6MWT
6 months
Hospitalisation and Mortality
314.66 m ± 48.17 m VS 260.59 m ± 66.65 m
OR = 0.819 95% CI [0.206–3.257]*
Moderate
Low
 Ingle et al. [67], 2007.
6MWT
36.6 months
(28.2–45.0 months)
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.998 95% CI [0.996–1.000]*
Low
Moderate
 Rostagno et al. [68], 2003.
6MWT
34 months
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.995 95% CI [0.993–0.997]***
Low
Moderate
 Cahalin et al. [69], 1996.
6MWT
62 ± 45 weeks (1–183 weeks)
Hospitalisation and Mortality
<  300 m VS ≥ 300 m
X2 = 40% vs 12% **
Moderate
Low
 Frankenstein et al. [70], 2008.
6MWT
42 months (22–80 months)
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.996 95% CI [0.995–0.997]**
Moderate
Moderate
 Rubim et al. [71], 2006.
6MWT
18 months (12–24 months)
All-Cause Mortality
≥ 520 m VS < 520 m
OR = −0.0081 95% CI [0.0029–0.0133]***
Low
Moderate
 Kanagala et al. [72], 2019.
6MWT
1429 days (1157–1657 days)
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.659 95% CI [0.465–0.934]**
Low
Low
 Zugck et al. [73], 2001.
6MWT
28.3 ± 14.1 months
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.99 95% CI [0.98–0.99]**
Moderate
Moderate
 Cahalin et al. [74], 2013.
6MWT
22.8 ± 22.1 months
Cardiac Mortality
Per each 1 m increased
HR = 0.99 95% CI [0.99–0.99]**
Low
Moderate
Cardiac Mortality
>  300 m VS ≤ 300 m
HR = 0.18 95% CI [0.04–0.89]**
 Reibis et al. [75], 2010.
6MWT
731 ± 215 days
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 50 m increasd
HR = 0.93 95% CI [0.86–1.00]**
Low
Moderate
 Castel et al. [76], 2009.
6MWT
24.4 ± 18.1 months
Cardiac Mortality
<  225 m VS > 400 m
HR = 5.60 95% CI [1.23–25.30]**
Low
Moderate
Cardiac Mortality
225-310 m VS > 400 m
HR = 1.28 95% CI [0.23–7.08]*
Cardiac Mortality
310-400 m VS > 400 m
HR = 4.10 95% CI [0.79–21.52]*
 Kamiya et al. [77], 2017.
6MWT
2.3 ± 1.9 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 10 m increased
HR = 0.96 95% CI [0.94–0.97]***
Low
Moderate
 García et al. [78], 2019.
SPPB
1 year
HF Hospitalisation
SPPB ≤ 7 VS SPPB > 7
OR = 6.7 95%CI [1.5–30.4]**
Moderate
Not Reported
All-Cause Mortality
SPPB ≤ 7 VS SPPB > 7
OR = 1.2 95%CI [0.3–5.4]*
Very Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
SPPB ≤ 7 VS SPPB > 7
OR = 3.6 95%CI [1.0–12.9]**
Very Low
 Hornsby et al. [79], 2019.
SPPB
6 months
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per 1-unit change in SPPB
OR = 0.81 95%CI [0.69–0.94]**
Moderate
Very Low
Number of All-Cause Hospitalisations
Per 1-unit change in SPPB
IRR = 0.92 95%CI [0.86–0.97]**
Not Reported
Days Hospitalized or Dead
Per 1-unit change in SPPB
IRR = 0.85 95%CI [0.73–0.99]**
Not Reported
 Chiarantini et al. [80], 2010.
SPPB
30 months (median 444 days)
All-Cause Mortality
SPPB 0 VS SPPB 9–12
HR = 6.06 95%CI [2.19–16.76]***
Moderate
Very Low
All-Cause Mortality
SPPB 1–4 VS SPPB 9–12
HR = 4.78 95%CI [1.63–14.02]**
All-Cause Mortality
SPPB 5–8 VS SPPB 9–12
HR = 1.95 95%CI [0.67–5.70]*
 Zaharias et al. [81], 2014.
SPPB
3 months
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per each 1 point decreased
HR = 1.042 95%CI [0.89–1.23]*
Moderate
Very Low
 Lo et al. [82], 2015.
Gait Speed
10 years
All-Cause Mortality
< 0.8 m/s VS ≥ 0.8 m/s
HR = 1.37 95%CI [1.10–1.70]**
Low
Low
 Pulignano et al. [83], 2016.
Gait Speed
1 year
All-Cause Mortality
Gait speed (tertiles)
HR = 0.620 95%CI [0.434–0.884]**
Low
Low
HF Hospitalisation
Gait speed (tertiles)
OR = 0.697 95%CI [0.547–0.899]**
Low
All-Cause Hospitalisation
Gait speed (tertiles)
HR = 0.741 95%CI [0.613–0.895]**
Low
 Chaudhry et al. [84], 2013.
Gait Speed
20 years
All-Cause Hospitalisation
≤ 0.8 m/s VS > 0.8 m/s
HR = 1.28 95%CI [1.06–1.55]**
Low
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
≤ 0.8 m/s VS > 0.8 m/s
HR = 1.31 95%CI [1.08–1.58]**
Low
 Tanaka et al. [85], 2018.
Gait Speed
1.7 ± 0.5 years
All-Cause Mortality
1.0–1.14 m/s VS > 1.14 m/s
HR = 0.80 95%CI [0.37–1.74]*
Moderate
Low
All-Cause Mortality
0.82–0.99 m/s VS > 1.14 m/s
HR = 1.46 95%CI [0.75–2.83]*
All-Cause Mortality
< 0.82 m/s VS > 1.14 m/s
HR = 2.65 95%CI [1.35–5.20]**
 Tanaka et al. [86], 2019.
Gait Speed
2.1 ± 1.9 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 0.1 m/s increased
HR = 0.83 95% CI [0.73–0.95]**
Low
Low
HF Hospitalisation
Per each 0.1 m/s increased
HR = 0.91 95% CI [0.83–0.99]**
Low
Hospitalisation and Mortality
Per each 0.1 m/s increased
HR = 0.90 95% CI [0.83–0.97]**
Low
 Rodríguez-Pascual et al. [87], 2017.
Gait Speed
1 year
All-Cause Mortality
GS < 0.65 m/s VS GS ≥ 0.65 m/s
HR = 1.86 95% CI [0.95–3.65]*
Low
Low
All-Cause Hospitalisation
GS < 0.65 m/s VS GS ≥ 0.65 m/s
HR = 1.57 95% CI [0.98–2.52]*
Low
 Vidán et al. [88], 2016.
Gait Speed
1 year
All-Cause Mortality
GS < 0.65 m/s VS GS ≥ 0.65 m/s
HR = 1.48 95% CI [0.95–2.32]*
Low
Low
All-Cause Hospitalisation
GS < 0.65 m/s VS GS ≥ 0.65 m/s
OR = 1.67 95% CI [0.98–2.85]*
Low
 Kamiya et al. [77], 2017.
Gait Speed
2.3 ± 1.9 years
All-Cause Mortality
Per each 0.1 m/s increased
HR = 0.87 95% CI [0.81–0.93]***
Low
Low
6MWT Six Minutes Walking Test. m Meters. HF Heart Failure. HR Hazard Ratio. CI Confidence Interval. OR: Odds Ratio. X2: Chi-square test. HFrEF Patients with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (Systolic Heart Failure). HFpEF Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (Diastolic Heart Failure). SPPB Short Physical Performance Battery. GS Gait Speed. IRR Incidence Rate Ratio. * p > 0.05. ** p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001
Patients with HFrEF, HFpEF and acute HF who showed a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT reported a larger risk of All-Cause of Mortality [HR = 2.29 95%CI (1.86–2.82), p <  0.001] than those patients who showed a good physical functional performance (Fig. 2a). Moreover, patients with HFrEF who decreased the meters (m) they walked in the 6MWT during follow-up showed larger risk of All-Cause of Mortality [HR = 1.22 95%CI (1.10–1.36), p <  0.001], although there was no lower risk of All-Cause of Mortality between patients with HFrEF, patients with HFpEF and patients with acute HF who increased the meters they walked in the 6MWT during follow-up (Additional file 5). Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF who showed a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT also reported a larger risk of HF Mortality [HR = 2.39 95%CI (2.21–2.59), p <  0.001] than those patients who showed a good physical functional performance (Fig. 2b). Patients with HFrEF who showed a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT also reported a larger risk of the combined endpoint of Hospitalisation and Mortality for any cause [HR = 1.80 95%CI (1.45–2.23), p <  0.001] or [OR = 2.07 95%CI (1.41–3.02), p < 0.001] than those patients who showed a good physical functional performance (Fig. 2c and Fig. 2d, respectively). Furthermore, patients with HFrEF, HFpEF and acute HF who showed a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT reported a larger risk of HF Hospitalisation [HR = 1.68 95%CI (1.20–2.33), p = 0.002] than those patients who showed a good physical functional performance (Additional file 5). On the other hand, patients with HFrEF, HFpEF and acute HF who showed a slower gait speed reported a larger risk of All-Cause of Mortality [HR = 1.49 95%CI (1.24–1.79), p < 0.001] than those patients who showed a faster gait speed (Fig. 3), above all, when gait speed was slower than 0.65 m/s [HR = 1.59 95%CI (1.10–2.30), p = 0.01] (Additional file 5). Moreover, patients with HFrEF, HFpEF and acute HF who increased their gait speed during follow-up showed a lower risk of All-Cause of Mortality [HR = 0.85 95%CI (0.81–0.91) (Additional file 5). Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF who showed a slower gait speed (< 0.80 m/s) also reported a larger risk of All-Cause of Hospitalisation [HR = 1.32 95%CI (1.10–1.57), p = 0.002] than patients with a faster gait speed (> 0.80 m/s) (Additional file 5).

Sensitivity analyses

The risk of All-Cause of Mortality in the 6MWT was larger when only patients with HFrEF and poor physical functional performance were assessed [HR = 2.46 95%CI (1.94–3.12), p < 0.001] (Additional file 6). However, the risk of HF Mortality [HR = 2.39 95%CI (2.21–2.58), p < 0.001] as well as the risk of All-Cause of Mortality in the 6MWT per increased units did not change when only patients with HFrEF were assessed (Additional file 6).

Descriptive quantitative analysis

Physical functional performance and mortality

A score between 1 and 4 points on the SPPB was associated with a larger risk of All-Cause of Mortality (HR = 4.78 95%CI [1.63–14.02, p < 0.05]) in patients with HFrEF and HFpEF [80], while a score below 7 points on the SPPB was not associated with a larger risk of All-Cause of Mortality in patients with acute HF [78].

Physical functional performance and the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality

A score below 7 points on the SPPB was associated with a larger risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause (OR = 3.6 95%CI [1.0–12.9, p < 0.05]) in patients with acute HF [78]. However, per each 1-unit improved in SPPB the risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause could be reduced OR = 0.81 95%CI [0.69–0.94, p < 0.05] in patients with HFpEF [79]. Patients with HFrEF and HFpEF with a gait speed slower than 0.8 m/s also showed a larger risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause (HR = 1.31 95%CI [1.08–1.58, p < 0.05]) [84].

Physical functional performance and hospitalisation

Patients with HFrEF with poor physical performance in the 6MWT showed a larger risk of All-Cause of Hospitalisation [OR = 14.02 95%CI (4.90–40.14), p = 0.001] [48] as patients with HFrEF and HFpEF [HR = 1.41 95%CI (1.01–1.99), p < 0.05] [51]. A score below 7 points on the SPPB was also associated with a larger risk of HF Hospitalisation (OR = 6.7 95%CI [1.5–30.4, p < 0.05]) in patients with acute HF [78].

Risk of Bias assessment

The risk of bias of included observational longitudinal cohort studies is shown in Table 3. In summary, 26 studies (59.10%) reported a low risk of bias, and 17 studies (38,63%) showed a moderate risk of bias. Selection bias (97,72%) were usual across the included studies. Using GRADE criteria, observational longitudinal cohort studies reported a low evidence in most of the prognostic outcomes. However, HF mortality and all-cause mortality showed a moderate evidence in the 6-MWT (Table 4).
Table 3
Risk of Bias Assessment of Cohort Studies (The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS)).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12872-020-01725-5/MediaObjects/12872_2020_1725_Tab3_HTML.png
Note: The NOS assigns up to a maximum of nine points for the least risk of bias based on 3 domains: selection of study groups (four points); comparability of groups (two points); and ascertainment of exposure and outcomes (three points). This checklist has been recommended for cohort studies. The risk of bias based on the NOS was classified as: Low Risk of Bias (7–9 points), Moderate Risk of Bias (4–6 points) and High Risk of Bias (0–3 points). Abbreviations: Quality: High Risk of Bias (H); Moderate Risk of Bias (M); Low Risk of Bias (L); NOTE. Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale: cohort studies: 1 = Representativeness of the exposed cohort; 2 = Selection of the non-exposed cohort; 3 = Ascertainment of exposure; 4 = Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study; 5–6 = Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis; 7 = Assessment of outcome; 8 = Was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur; 9 = Adequacy of follow-up of cohorts
Table 4
Summary of Findings and Quality of Evidence Assessment of Included Observational Longitudinal Cohort Studies (GRADE)
Summary of findings
Quality of evidence assessment (GRADE)
Outcomes
N° studies
N° participants
Designa
Risk of Biasb
Inconsistencyc
Indirectness d
Imprecisione
Other f
Level of Evidence
Importance
Six Minutes Walking Test (6-MWT)
 All-Cause Mortality
18
15,033
Observational
NO
Consistency (+ 1)
NO
NO
NO
Moderate
Critical
 All-Cause Hospitalisation
2
1374
Observational
NO
Not Serious
NO
NO
NO
Low
Critical
 HF Mortality
6
1493
Observational
NO
Consistency (+ 1)
NO
NO
NO
Moderate
Critical
 HF Hospitalisation
6
1851
Observational
Not Serious
Not Serious
NO
Not Serious
NO
Low
Critical
 Hospitalisation and Mortality
11
4788
Observational
Serious (−1)
Consistency (+ 1)
Not Serious
NO
NO
Low
Critical
Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB)
 All-Cause Mortality
2
243
Observational
Very Serious (−2)
Serious (−1)
Not Serious
Serious (−1)
NO
Very Low
Critical
 Hospitalisation and Mortality
3
231
Observational
Serious (−1)
Not Serious
Not Serious
Not Serious
NO
Very Low
Critical
Gait Speed
 All-Cause Mortality
7
4828
Observational
NO
Not Serious
NO
Not Serious
NO
Low
Critical
 All-Cause Hospitalisation
4
2002
Observational
NO
Not Serious
NO
Not Serious
NO
Low
Critical
 HF Hospitalisation
2
719
Observational
NO
Not Serious
NO
Not Serious
NO
Low
Critical
 Hospitalisation and Mortality
2
1146
Observational
NO
Not Serious
NO
Not Serious
NO
Low
Critical
In brief, the GRADE classification was carried out according to the presence, or not, of the following identified factors: (1) study design, (2) risk of bias, (3) inconsistency of results (4) indirectness (5) imprecision, and (6) other considerations (e.g. reporting bias). The quality of the evidence based on the GRADE criteria was classified as: (1) high (further research is unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect and there are no known or suspected reporting bias); (2) moderate (further research is likely to have an important effect on our confidence in the estimate of effect and could change the estimate); (3) low (further research is likely to have an important effect on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate); or (4) very low (we are uncertain about the estimate) [38]
a Design: Observational Longitudinal Cohort Studies show a Low Level of Evidence according to GRADE
b Risk Of Bias: > 50% (NO) of the information is from studies with low risk of bias which rarely can affect the interpretation of results. 50% (Not Serious) of the information is from studies with moderate risk of bias which could affect the interpretation of results, and 50% of the information is from studies with low risk of bias. > 50% (Serious) or > 75% (Very Serious) of the information is from studies with high/moderate risk of bias which sufficiently can affect the interpretation of results
c Inconsistency: > 50% (Consistency) presence of high degree of consistency in the results, such as effects in same directions and not variations in the degree to which the outcome is affected (large significant effects (Hazard Ratio or Odds Ratio > 2)). > 50% (Not Serious) presence of high degree of consistency in the results, such as effects in same directions although variations in the degree to which the outcome is affected (small significant effects or large significant effects). > 50% (Serious) or > 75% (Very serious) presence of high degree of inconsistency in the results, such as effects in opposite directions, or large variations in the degree to which the outcome is affected (eg, very large and very small effects or no significant effect)
d Indirectness: > 50% (NO) of included studies report similar population (similar HF diagnosis and similar age), as well as the same functional test (although different distances or cut-off points) and the same outcome. > 50% (Not Serious) of included studies show different HF diagnosis but population with similar age, and the same functional test (although different distances or cut-off points) and the same outcome is reported
e Imprecision: > 50% (NO) of included studies report a 95% CI, with a narrow range (it excludes 1.0), includes large effects in the same direction and the sample size is large. > 50% (Not Serious) of included studies report a 95% CI, with a narrow range (it excludes 1.0), includes large or small effects in the same direction and the sample size could be small. > 50% (Serious) or > 75% (Very Serious) of included studies present 95% CIs with wide range (it does not exclude 1.0) and includes small effects in both directions
f Other: Publication Bias is not suspected, and > 75% of included studies included the outcome data in a multivariate models adjusted by variables which could change the effect (NO)

Discussion

Main findings and comparison with other studies

The current systematic review and meta-analysis showed that patients with HFrEF and HFpEF who reported a poor physical functional performance in 6-MWT have an increased risk of all-cause of mortality and an increased risk of HF mortality. There was consistency in the risk of all-cause of mortality and HF mortality between the studies included in each meta-analysis (Fig. 2a and Fig. 2b) and the GRADE criteria also reported a moderate level of evidence per otucome. Although patients with HFrEF who decreased the meters they walked in the 6MWT during follow-up showed an increased risk of all-cause of mortality, there was no decreased risk of all-cause of mortality between patients with HFrEF and HFpEF who increased the meters they walked in the 6MWT during follow-up [52, 53, 59, 60, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73, 75, 77]. Maybe this is beacuse the most of included studies in the meta-analysis reported a decreased risk of mortality for every 1 m increased [53, 65, 67, 68, 70, 73] or every 10 m [52, 60, 77] increased, while a systematic review determined that 45 m is the clinically meaningful change in the 6MWT [89]. Patients with HF who showed a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT also reported an increased risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause (Fig. 2c and Fig. 2d), an increased risk of HF hospitalisation (Additional file 5) and an increased risk of all-cause of hospitalisation [48, 51]. However, the level of evidence of those outcomes was low according to the GRADE criteria. Moreover, there was a lack of homogeneity regarding which cut-off point should be used to stratify patients with HF based on their physical functional performance in the 6MWT. A distance traveled < 300 m was the most used distance to define patients with poor physical performance in the 6MWT in this study [47, 49, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 62, 64, 69, 74], while a previous review reported that a distance traveled ≤350 m in 6-MWT could be the most indicative distance of poor physical functional performance and worse prognosis in patients with HF [24].
A score between 1 and 4 points on the SPPB was associated with an increased risk of all-cause of mortality in this systematic review [80]. However, in the current study a score below 7 points on the SPPB seems to be the most indicative of a worse prognosis in patients with HF since it was associated with a larger risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause and a larger risk of HF hospitalisation [78]. GRADE criteria showed a very low level of evidence per outcome in each outcome examined by the SPPB. Moreover, meta-analysis on physical functional performance on the SPPB and prognosis in patients with HF could not be performed. As the present review, a score below 7 points on the SPPB was also associated with large risk of all-cause mortality in older adults [90]. However, other studies reported a large risk of mortality or hospitalisation in older adults who showed a score below 5 points [80, 9193].
Patients who showed a slower gait speed also reported an increased risk of all-cause of mortality (Fig. 3), above all, when gait speed was slower than 0.65 m/s (Additional file 5). Moreover, patients with HF who showed a slower gait speed also reported an increased risk of all-cause of hospitalisation (Additional file 5) and an increased risk of the combined endpoint of hospitalisation and mortality for any cause [84], specially when gait speed was slower than 0.80 m/s [83, 84, 86]. GRADE criteria reported a low level of evidence per outcome in each prognostic outcome in Gait Speed Test. Other studies have shown the relationship between gait speed and survival, death and hospitalisation due to HF [27, 94]. In fact, Dodson et al. [95] revealed that patients who showed a gait speed slower than 0.8 m/s were more likely to experience one-year mortality or hospitalisation than patients with gait speed faster than 0.8 m/s. Alfredsson et al. [96] also reported that patients with a gait speed slower than 0.8 m/s after a transcatheter aortic valve replacement, had 35% higher 30-day mortality than patients with faster gait speed. Chainani et al. [97] reported that gait speed and handgrip strength are associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality.
A meta-analysis published by Yamamoto et al. [98] reported that 6MWT were significantly associated with mortality and cardiovascular disease. Frailty has also been associated with larger risk of mortality and hospitalisation in patients with chronic HF [25, 26, 30, 31, 99]. Bagnall et al. [100] revealed that frailty patients had a risk of mortality 2- to 4-fold compared with non-frail patients after acardiac surgery or transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Gait speed is a marker of frailty, although frailty could be also assessed by the 6MWT, the SPPB or the TUG [25, 26, 30, 31, 99]. In this way, the use of functional tests seem to be useful to stratify patients with HF based on their physical functional performance and to determine their prognosis.
To our knowledge, our review is the first systematic review reporting the level of evidence per each prognostic outcome using GRADE criteria. Other reviews showed the prognostic role of the 6MWT test or the impact of the physical performance on prognosis in patients with HF, but not reported the risk of bias of included studies or the level of evidence per outcome according to GRADE criteria [22, 23, 98, 101103].

Implications for clinical practice

The current findings may be useful to promote functional assessments that allow stratify patients with HF according to their functional impairment. Furthermore, accurate prognostic stratification could be essential for optimizing clinical management and treatment decision making, with the aim of maintaining functionality, improving quality of life and reducing the number of hospitalisations, as well as increasing the life expectancy of patients with HF.
Adjusted medical-pharmacological treatment, in addition to improve symptoms, could prevent further cardiovascular accidents and prolong the life expectancy of patients with HF [13]. Moreover, adjusted exercise programs could reduce mortality, may improve functional capacity and quality of life, and may reduce hospitalisations [5, 8]. It has also been shown that patients with more physical activity performed weekly reported a lower risk of mortality [104106]. Functional tests such as 6MWT, Gait Speed or SPPB may provide incremental prognostic value and could help to individualize the exercise prescription [107].

Future research

Future research should aim to determine the optimal cut-off points for prognostic prediction and to determine the utility of functional assessments in the management and treatment of patients with HF. The following recommendations should guide future research: 1) use the same cut off point in functional tests; 2) include a large sample size with patients with HF who show different characteristics.

Strengths and limitations of the study

The strengths of this systematic review and meta-analysis included the use of a pre-specified protocol registered on PROSPERO, the PRISMA checklist, the NOS to determine the risk of bias of each study, the GRADE criteria to assess the overall quality and the strength of the evidence per outcome, a robust search strategy complemented by a manual search, so that all studies that met the eligibility criteria could have been identified. Thus, our systematic review included 44 studies, while a previous similar review carried out by Yamamoto et al. [98] included only 22 studies.
However, there are several limitations that should be mentioned. First, the lack of uniformity among included studies, which included different cut-off points in functional tests, should be taken into account when interpreting the results. Finally, most of prognositc outcomes showed a low level of evidence per outcome according to GRADE criteria.

Conclusion

Patients with HF who report a poor physical functional performance in the 6MWT, in the SPPB or in the Gait Speed Test, show worse prognosis than patients who report a good physical functional performance in terms of an increased risk of hospitalisation or an increased risk of mortality. However, there is a lack of homogeneity regarding which cut-off point should be used to stratify patients with HF based on their physical functional performance in the different functional tests and GRADE criteria show a low level of evidence per outcome in most of examined prognostic outcome variables.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12872-020-01725-5.

Acknowledgments

Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.
Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, Abdulkader RS, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1260–344.CrossRef Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, Abdulkader RS, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 333 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1260–344.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Abajobir AA, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, Aboyans V, et al. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1151–210.CrossRef Abajobir AA, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, Abera SF, Aboyans V, et al. Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1151–210.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Wang H, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national under-5 mortality, adult mortality, age-specific mortality, and life expectancy, 1970-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1084–150.CrossRef Wang H, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, Abbas KM, Abd-Allah F, et al. Global, regional, and national under-5 mortality, adult mortality, age-specific mortality, and life expectancy, 1970-2016: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1084–150.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Bui A, Horwich T, Fonarow G. Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(3):30–41.PubMedCrossRef Bui A, Horwich T, Fonarow G. Epidemiology and risk profile of heart failure. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2011;8(3):30–41.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Tendera M. Epidemiology, treatment, and guidelines for the treatment of heart failure in Europe. Eur Heart J. 2005;7(1):5–9.CrossRef Tendera M. Epidemiology, treatment, and guidelines for the treatment of heart failure in Europe. Eur Heart J. 2005;7(1):5–9.CrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Smith AC. Effect of telemonitoring on re-admission in patients with congestive heart failure. Medsurg Nurs. 2013;22(1):39–44.PubMed Smith AC. Effect of telemonitoring on re-admission in patients with congestive heart failure. Medsurg Nurs. 2013;22(1):39–44.PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Yancy C, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):147.CrossRef Yancy C, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):147.CrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Wheeler EC, Plowfield L. Clinical education initiative in the community: caring for patients with congestive heart failure. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2004;25(1):16–21.PubMed Wheeler EC, Plowfield L. Clinical education initiative in the community: caring for patients with congestive heart failure. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2004;25(1):16–21.PubMed
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Fletcher L, Thomas D. Heart failure: understanding the pathophysiology and management. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2001;13(6):249–57. Fletcher L, Thomas D. Heart failure: understanding the pathophysiology and management. J Am Acad Nurse Pract. 2001;13(6):249–57.
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Siracuse J, Chaikof E. The pathogenesis of diabetic atherosclerosis. Diab Peripher Vasc Dis Diagn Manage. 2012;158(5):13–26. Siracuse J, Chaikof E. The pathogenesis of diabetic atherosclerosis. Diab Peripher Vasc Dis Diagn Manage. 2012;158(5):13–26.
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task forcé for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European society of cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–200.PubMedCrossRef Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: the task forcé for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European society of cardiology (ESC) developed with the special contribution of the heart failure association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016;37:2129–200.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Barker J, Byrne KS, Doherty A, Foster C, Rahimi K, Ramakrishnan R, et al. Physical activity of UK adults with chronic disease: cross-sectional analysis of accelerometer-measured physical activity in 96 706 UK biobank participants. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(4):1167–74.PubMedPubMedCentral Barker J, Byrne KS, Doherty A, Foster C, Rahimi K, Ramakrishnan R, et al. Physical activity of UK adults with chronic disease: cross-sectional analysis of accelerometer-measured physical activity in 96 706 UK biobank participants. Int J Epidemiol. 2019;48(4):1167–74.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kinugawa S, Takada S, Matsushima S, Okita K, Tsutsui H. Skeletal muscle abnormalities in heart failure. Int Heart J. 2015;56(5):475–84.PubMedCrossRef Kinugawa S, Takada S, Matsushima S, Okita K, Tsutsui H. Skeletal muscle abnormalities in heart failure. Int Heart J. 2015;56(5):475–84.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Mancini DM, Eisen H, Kussmaul W, Mull R, Edmunds L, Wilson J. Value of peak exercise oxygen consumption for optimal timing of cardiac transplantation in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Circulation. 1991;83(3):778–86.PubMedCrossRef Mancini DM, Eisen H, Kussmaul W, Mull R, Edmunds L, Wilson J. Value of peak exercise oxygen consumption for optimal timing of cardiac transplantation in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Circulation. 1991;83(3):778–86.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Myers J, Prakash M, Froelicher V, Do D, Partington S, Atwood JE. Exercise capacity and mortality among men referred for exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(11):793–801.PubMedCrossRef Myers J, Prakash M, Froelicher V, Do D, Partington S, Atwood JE. Exercise capacity and mortality among men referred for exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(11):793–801.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Hülsmann M, Quittan M, Berger R, Crevenna R, Springer C, Nuhr M, et al. Muscle strength as a predictor of long-term survival in severe congestive heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2004;6(1):101–7.PubMedCrossRef Hülsmann M, Quittan M, Berger R, Crevenna R, Springer C, Nuhr M, et al. Muscle strength as a predictor of long-term survival in severe congestive heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2004;6(1):101–7.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Rostagno C, Gensini GF. Six minute walk test: a simple and useful test to evaluate functional capacity in patients with heart failure. Intern Emerg Med. 2008;3(3):205–12.PubMedCrossRef Rostagno C, Gensini GF. Six minute walk test: a simple and useful test to evaluate functional capacity in patients with heart failure. Intern Emerg Med. 2008;3(3):205–12.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Du H, Wonggom P, Tongpeth J, Clark RA. Six-minute walk test for assessing physical functional capacity in chronic heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2017;14(3):158–66.PubMedCrossRef Du H, Wonggom P, Tongpeth J, Clark RA. Six-minute walk test for assessing physical functional capacity in chronic heart failure. Curr Heart Fail Rep. 2017;14(3):158–66.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Rasekaba T, Lee AL, Naughton MT, Williams TJ, Holland AE. The six-minute walk test: A useful metric for the cardiopulmonary patient. Intern Med J. 2009;39:495–501. Rasekaba T, Lee AL, Naughton MT, Williams TJ, Holland AE. The six-minute walk test: A useful metric for the cardiopulmonary patient. Intern Med J. 2009;39:495–501.
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Díez-Villanueva P, Arizá-Solé A, Vidán MT, Bonanad C, Formiga F, Sanchis J, et al. Recomendaciones de la Sección de Cardiología Geriátrica de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología Para la valoración de la fragilidad en el anciano con cardiopatía. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2019;72(1):63–71.PubMedCrossRef Díez-Villanueva P, Arizá-Solé A, Vidán MT, Bonanad C, Formiga F, Sanchis J, et al. Recomendaciones de la Sección de Cardiología Geriátrica de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología Para la valoración de la fragilidad en el anciano con cardiopatía. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2019;72(1):63–71.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Yang X, Lupón J, Vidán MT, Ferguson C, Gastelurrutia P, Newton PJ, et al. Impact of frailty on mortality and hospitalisation in chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(23):e008251.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Yang X, Lupón J, Vidán MT, Ferguson C, Gastelurrutia P, Newton PJ, et al. Impact of frailty on mortality and hospitalisation in chronic heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018;7(23):e008251.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, et al. Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an international academy on nutrition and aging (IANA) task force. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13:881–9.PubMedCrossRef Abellan van Kan G, Rolland Y, Andrieu S, et al. Gait speed at usual pace as a predictor of adverse outcomes in community-dwelling older people an international academy on nutrition and aging (IANA) task force. J Nutr Health Aging. 2009;13:881–9.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Afilalo J, Alexander KP, Mack MJ, et al. Frailty assessment in the cardiovascular care of older adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:747–62.PubMedCrossRef Afilalo J, Alexander KP, Mack MJ, et al. Frailty assessment in the cardiovascular care of older adults. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:747–62.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Newman AB, Gottdiener JS, McBurnie MA, et al. Associations of subclinical cardiovascular disease with frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M158–66.PubMedCrossRef Newman AB, Gottdiener JS, McBurnie MA, et al. Associations of subclinical cardiovascular disease with frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56:M158–66.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, Fallen EL. Pugsley S0, Taylor DW, et al. the 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(8):919–23.PubMedPubMedCentral Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, Fallen EL. Pugsley S0, Taylor DW, et al. the 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132(8):919–23.PubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):85–94.CrossRef Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):85–94.CrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up and go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–8.PubMedCrossRef Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “up and go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39(2):142–8.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.PubMedCrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Brenyo A, Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Rao M, McNitt S, Huang DT, et al. Baseline functional capacity and the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure enrolled in MADIT-CRT. Hear Rhythm 2012;9(9):1454–1459. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2012.04.018. Brenyo A, Goldenberg I, Moss AJ, Rao M, McNitt S, Huang DT, et al. Baseline functional capacity and the benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with mildly symptomatic heart failure enrolled in MADIT-CRT. Hear Rhythm 2012;9(9):1454–1459. Available from: http://​dx.​doi.​org/​https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​hrthm.​2012.​04.​018.
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Ferreira JP, Metra M, Anker SD, Dickstein K, Lang CC, Ng L, et al. Clinical correlates and outcome associated with changes in 6-minute walking distance in patients with heart failure: findings from the BIOSTAT-CHF study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(2):218–26.PubMedCrossRef Ferreira JP, Metra M, Anker SD, Dickstein K, Lang CC, Ng L, et al. Clinical correlates and outcome associated with changes in 6-minute walking distance in patients with heart failure: findings from the BIOSTAT-CHF study. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(2):218–26.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Wegrzynowska-Teodorczyk K, Rudzinska E, Lazorczyk M, Nowakowska K, Banasiak W, Ponikowski P, et al. Distance covered during a six-minute walk test predicts long-term cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation rates in men with systolic heart failure: an observational study. J Physiother. 2013;59(3):177–87.PubMedCrossRef Wegrzynowska-Teodorczyk K, Rudzinska E, Lazorczyk M, Nowakowska K, Banasiak W, Ponikowski P, et al. Distance covered during a six-minute walk test predicts long-term cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation rates in men with systolic heart failure: an observational study. J Physiother. 2013;59(3):177–87.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Zurück zum Zitat Bittner V, Weiner DH, Yusuf S, Rogers WJ, Mcintyre KM, Bangdiwala SI, et al. Prediction of mortality and morbidity with a 6-minute walk test in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JAMA. 1993;270(14):1702–7.PubMedCrossRef Bittner V, Weiner DH, Yusuf S, Rogers WJ, Mcintyre KM, Bangdiwala SI, et al. Prediction of mortality and morbidity with a 6-minute walk test in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. JAMA. 1993;270(14):1702–7.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Arslan S, Erol MK, Gundogdu F, Sevimli S, Aksakal E, Senocak H, et al. Prognostic value of 6-minute walk test in stable outpatients with heart failure. Tex Heart Inst J. 2007;34(2):166–9.PubMedPubMedCentral Arslan S, Erol MK, Gundogdu F, Sevimli S, Aksakal E, Senocak H, et al. Prognostic value of 6-minute walk test in stable outpatients with heart failure. Tex Heart Inst J. 2007;34(2):166–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Zurück zum Zitat Lee R, Chan YH, Wong J, Lau D, Ng K. The 6-minute walk test predicts clinical outcome in Asian patients with chronic congestive heart failure on contemporary medical therapy: a study of the multiracial population in Singapore. Int J Cardiol. 2007 Jul 10;119(2):168–75.PubMedCrossRef Lee R, Chan YH, Wong J, Lau D, Ng K. The 6-minute walk test predicts clinical outcome in Asian patients with chronic congestive heart failure on contemporary medical therapy: a study of the multiracial population in Singapore. Int J Cardiol. 2007 Jul 10;119(2):168–75.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. The association of 6-minute walk performance and outcomes in stable outpatients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2004;10(1):9–14.PubMedCrossRef Curtis JP, Rathore SS, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. The association of 6-minute walk performance and outcomes in stable outpatients with heart failure. J Card Fail. 2004;10(1):9–14.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Ingle L, Cleland JG, Clark AL. The long-term prognostic significance of 6-minute walk test distance in patients with chronic heart failure. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:505969.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ingle L, Cleland JG, Clark AL. The long-term prognostic significance of 6-minute walk test distance in patients with chronic heart failure. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:505969.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Zurück zum Zitat Alahdab MT, Mansour IN, Napan S, Stamos TD. Six minute walk test predicts long-term all-cause mortality and heart failure Rehospitalisation in African-American patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. J Card Fail 2009;15(2): 130–135. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2008.10.006. Alahdab MT, Mansour IN, Napan S, Stamos TD. Six minute walk test predicts long-term all-cause mortality and heart failure Rehospitalisation in African-American patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure. J Card Fail 2009;15(2): 130–135. Available from: http://​dx.​doi.​org/​https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​cardfail.​2008.​10.​006.
54.
Zurück zum Zitat Mangla A, Kane J, Beaty E, Richardson D, Powell LH, Calvin JE. Comparison of predictors of heart failure-related hospitalisation or death in patients with versus without preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(12):1907–12.PubMedCrossRef Mangla A, Kane J, Beaty E, Richardson D, Powell LH, Calvin JE. Comparison of predictors of heart failure-related hospitalisation or death in patients with versus without preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Am J Cardiol. 2013;112(12):1907–12.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Hasin T, Topilsky Y, Kremers WK, Boilson BA, Schirger JA, Edwards BS, et al. Usefulness of the six-minute walk test after continuous axial flow left ventricular device implantation to predict survival. Am J Cardiol 2012;110(9): 1322–1328. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2012.06.036. Hasin T, Topilsky Y, Kremers WK, Boilson BA, Schirger JA, Edwards BS, et al. Usefulness of the six-minute walk test after continuous axial flow left ventricular device implantation to predict survival. Am J Cardiol 2012;110(9): 1322–1328. Available from: http://​dx.​doi.​org/​https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​amjcard.​2012.​06.​036.
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Passantino A, Lagioia R, Mastropasqua F, Scrutinio D. Short-term change in distance walked in 6 min is an Indicator of outcome in patients with chronic heart failure in clinical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(1):99–105.PubMedCrossRef Passantino A, Lagioia R, Mastropasqua F, Scrutinio D. Short-term change in distance walked in 6 min is an Indicator of outcome in patients with chronic heart failure in clinical practice. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48(1):99–105.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Howie-Esquivel J, Dracup K. Does oxygen saturation or distance walked predict rehospitalisation in heart failure? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008 Jul;23(4):349–56.PubMedCrossRef Howie-Esquivel J, Dracup K. Does oxygen saturation or distance walked predict rehospitalisation in heart failure? J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2008 Jul;23(4):349–56.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Zurück zum Zitat Zotter-Tufaro C, Mascherbauer J, Duca F, Koell B, Aschauer S, Kammerlander AA, et al. Prognostic significance and Determinantsof the 6-min walk test inPatients WithHeart failure and preserved EjectionFraction. JACC Hear Fail. 2015;3(6):459–66.CrossRef Zotter-Tufaro C, Mascherbauer J, Duca F, Koell B, Aschauer S, Kammerlander AA, et al. Prognostic significance and Determinantsof the 6-min walk test inPatients WithHeart failure and preserved EjectionFraction. JACC Hear Fail. 2015;3(6):459–66.CrossRef
59.
Zurück zum Zitat Boxer R, Kleppinger A, Ahmad A, Annis K, Hager D, Kenny A. The 6-minute walk is associated with frailty and predicts mortality in older adults with heart failure. Congest Hear Fail. 2010;16(5):208–13.CrossRef Boxer R, Kleppinger A, Ahmad A, Annis K, Hager D, Kenny A. The 6-minute walk is associated with frailty and predicts mortality in older adults with heart failure. Congest Hear Fail. 2010;16(5):208–13.CrossRef
60.
Zurück zum Zitat Ingle L, Cleland JG, Clark AL. The relation between repeated 6-minute walk test performance and outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57(4):244–53.PubMedCrossRef Ingle L, Cleland JG, Clark AL. The relation between repeated 6-minute walk test performance and outcome in patients with chronic heart failure. Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;57(4):244–53.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Zurück zum Zitat Guazzi M, Dickstein K, Vicenzi M, Arena R. Six-minute walk test and cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with chronic heart failure: a comparative analysis on clinical and prognostic insights. Circ Hear Fail. 2009;2(6):549–55.CrossRef Guazzi M, Dickstein K, Vicenzi M, Arena R. Six-minute walk test and cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with chronic heart failure: a comparative analysis on clinical and prognostic insights. Circ Hear Fail. 2009;2(6):549–55.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat McCabe N, Butler J, Dunbar SB, Higgins M, Reilly C. Six-minute walk distance predicts 30-day readmission after acute heart failure hospitalisation. Heart Lung. 2017;46(4):287–92.PubMedCrossRef McCabe N, Butler J, Dunbar SB, Higgins M, Reilly C. Six-minute walk distance predicts 30-day readmission after acute heart failure hospitalisation. Heart Lung. 2017;46(4):287–92.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Zurück zum Zitat Vegh EM, Kandala J, Orencole M, Upadhyay GA, Sharma A, Miller A, et al. Device-measured physical activity versus six-minute walk test as a predictor of reverse remodeling and outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(9):1523–8.PubMedCrossRef Vegh EM, Kandala J, Orencole M, Upadhyay GA, Sharma A, Miller A, et al. Device-measured physical activity versus six-minute walk test as a predictor of reverse remodeling and outcome after cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(9):1523–8.PubMedCrossRef
64.
Zurück zum Zitat Roul G, Germain P, Bareiss P. Does the 6-minute walk test predict the prognosis in patients with NYHA class II or III chronic heart failure? Am Heart J. 1998;136(3):449–57.PubMedCrossRef Roul G, Germain P, Bareiss P. Does the 6-minute walk test predict the prognosis in patients with NYHA class II or III chronic heart failure? Am Heart J. 1998;136(3):449–57.PubMedCrossRef
65.
Zurück zum Zitat Frankenstein L, Remppis A, Graham J, Schellberg D, Sigg C, Nelles M, et al. Gender and age related predictive value of walk test in heart failure: Do anthropometrics matter in clinical practice? Int J Cardiol. 2008;127(3):331–6.PubMedCrossRef Frankenstein L, Remppis A, Graham J, Schellberg D, Sigg C, Nelles M, et al. Gender and age related predictive value of walk test in heart failure: Do anthropometrics matter in clinical practice? Int J Cardiol. 2008;127(3):331–6.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Zurück zum Zitat Mene-Afejuku TO, Balogun MO, Akintomide AO, Adebayo RA. Prognostic indices among hypertensive heart failure patients in Nigeria: the roles of 24-hour holter electrocardiography and 6-minute walk test. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017;13:71–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mene-Afejuku TO, Balogun MO, Akintomide AO, Adebayo RA. Prognostic indices among hypertensive heart failure patients in Nigeria: the roles of 24-hour holter electrocardiography and 6-minute walk test. Vasc Health Risk Manag. 2017;13:71–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
Zurück zum Zitat Ingle L, Rigby AS, Carroll S, Butterly R, King RF, Cooke CB, et al. Prognostic value of the 6 min walk test and self-perceived symptom severity in older patients with chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:560–8.PubMedCrossRef Ingle L, Rigby AS, Carroll S, Butterly R, King RF, Cooke CB, et al. Prognostic value of the 6 min walk test and self-perceived symptom severity in older patients with chronic heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2007;28:560–8.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Zurück zum Zitat Rostagno C, Olivo G, Comeglio M, Boddi V, Banchelli M, Galanti G, et al. Prognostic value of 6-minute walk corridor test in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: comparison with other methods of functional evaluation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003;5(3):247–52.PubMedCrossRef Rostagno C, Olivo G, Comeglio M, Boddi V, Banchelli M, Galanti G, et al. Prognostic value of 6-minute walk corridor test in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: comparison with other methods of functional evaluation. Eur J Heart Fail. 2003;5(3):247–52.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Zurück zum Zitat Cahalin LP, Mathier MA, Semigran MJ, Dec GW, DiSalvo TG. The six-minute walk test predicts peak oxygen uptake and survival in patients with advanced heart failure. Chest. 1996;110(2):325–32.PubMedCrossRef Cahalin LP, Mathier MA, Semigran MJ, Dec GW, DiSalvo TG. The six-minute walk test predicts peak oxygen uptake and survival in patients with advanced heart failure. Chest. 1996;110(2):325–32.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Zurück zum Zitat Frankenstein L, Zugck C, Nelles M, Schellberg D, Katus H, Remppis A. Sex-specific predictive power of 6-minute walk test in chronic heart failure is not enhanced using percent achieved of published reference equations. J Hear Lung Transplant. 2008;27(4):427–34.CrossRef Frankenstein L, Zugck C, Nelles M, Schellberg D, Katus H, Remppis A. Sex-specific predictive power of 6-minute walk test in chronic heart failure is not enhanced using percent achieved of published reference equations. J Hear Lung Transplant. 2008;27(4):427–34.CrossRef
71.
Zurück zum Zitat Rubim VSM, Neto CD, Martins-Romeo JL, Montera MW. Valor prognóstico do teste de caminhada de seis minutos na insuficiência cardíaca. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2006;86(2):120–5.PubMedCrossRef Rubim VSM, Neto CD, Martins-Romeo JL, Montera MW. Valor prognóstico do teste de caminhada de seis minutos na insuficiência cardíaca. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2006;86(2):120–5.PubMedCrossRef
72.
Zurück zum Zitat Kanagala P, Arnold JR, Cheng ASH, Singh A, Khan JN, Gulsin GS, et al. Left atrial ejection fraction and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jan 1;36(1):101–10.PubMedCrossRef Kanagala P, Arnold JR, Cheng ASH, Singh A, Khan JN, Gulsin GS, et al. Left atrial ejection fraction and outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2020 Jan 1;36(1):101–10.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Zurück zum Zitat Zugck C, Krüger C, Kell R, Körber S, Schellberg D, Kübler W, et al. Risk stratification in middle-aged patients with congestive heart failure: prospective comparison of the heart failure survival score (HFSS) and a simplified two-variable model. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001;3(5):577–85.PubMedCrossRef Zugck C, Krüger C, Kell R, Körber S, Schellberg D, Kübler W, et al. Risk stratification in middle-aged patients with congestive heart failure: prospective comparison of the heart failure survival score (HFSS) and a simplified two-variable model. Eur J Heart Fail. 2001;3(5):577–85.PubMedCrossRef
74.
Zurück zum Zitat Cahalin LP, Arena R, Labate V, Bandera F, Lavie CJ, Guazzi M. Heart rate recovery after the 6 min walk test rather than distance ambulated is a powerful prognostic Indicator in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a comparison with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:519–27.PubMedCrossRef Cahalin LP, Arena R, Labate V, Bandera F, Lavie CJ, Guazzi M. Heart rate recovery after the 6 min walk test rather than distance ambulated is a powerful prognostic Indicator in heart failure with reduced and preserved ejection fraction: a comparison with cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Eur J Heart Fail. 2013;15:519–27.PubMedCrossRef
75.
Zurück zum Zitat Reibis RK, Treszl A, Wegscheider K, Ehrlich B, Dissmann R, Völler H. Exercise capacity is the most powerful predictor of 2-year mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Herz. 2010 Mar;35(2):104–10.PubMedCrossRef Reibis RK, Treszl A, Wegscheider K, Ehrlich B, Dissmann R, Völler H. Exercise capacity is the most powerful predictor of 2-year mortality in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Herz. 2010 Mar;35(2):104–10.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Zurück zum Zitat Castel MA, Méndez F, Tamborero D, Mont L, Magnani S, Tolosana JM, et al. Six-minute walking test predicts long-term cardiac death in patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2009;11:338–42.PubMedCrossRef Castel MA, Méndez F, Tamborero D, Mont L, Magnani S, Tolosana JM, et al. Six-minute walking test predicts long-term cardiac death in patients who received cardiac resynchronization therapy. Europace. 2009;11:338–42.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Zurück zum Zitat Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsue Y, Mezzani A, Corrà U, Matsuzawa R, et al. Gait speed has comparable prognostic capability to six-minute walk distance in older patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(2):212–9.PubMedCrossRef Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsue Y, Mezzani A, Corrà U, Matsuzawa R, et al. Gait speed has comparable prognostic capability to six-minute walk distance in older patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2018;25(2):212–9.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Zurück zum Zitat García GL, Sánchez SM, García-Briñón MÁ, Fernández-Alonso C, González del Castillo J, Martín-Sánchez FJ. El efecto de la fragilidad física en el pronóstico a largo plazo en los pacientes mayores con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda dados de Alta desde un servicio de urgencias. Emergencias. 2019;31(6):413–6. García GL, Sánchez SM, García-Briñón MÁ, Fernández-Alonso C, González del Castillo J, Martín-Sánchez FJ. El efecto de la fragilidad física en el pronóstico a largo plazo en los pacientes mayores con insuficiencia cardiaca aguda dados de Alta desde un servicio de urgencias. Emergencias. 2019;31(6):413–6.
79.
Zurück zum Zitat Hornsby WE, Sareini M, Golbus JR, Willer J, Mcnamara JL, Konerman MC, et al. Lower extremity function is independently associated with hospitalisation burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Card Fail. 2019;25(1):2–9.PubMedCrossRef Hornsby WE, Sareini M, Golbus JR, Willer J, Mcnamara JL, Konerman MC, et al. Lower extremity function is independently associated with hospitalisation burden in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. J Card Fail. 2019;25(1):2–9.PubMedCrossRef
80.
Zurück zum Zitat Chiarantini D, Volpato S, Sioulis F, Bartalucci F, Del Bianco L, Mangani I, et al. Lower extremity performance measures predict long-term prognosis in older patients hospitalized for heart failure. J Card Fail. 2010;16(5):390–5.PubMedCrossRef Chiarantini D, Volpato S, Sioulis F, Bartalucci F, Del Bianco L, Mangani I, et al. Lower extremity performance measures predict long-term prognosis in older patients hospitalized for heart failure. J Card Fail. 2010;16(5):390–5.PubMedCrossRef
81.
Zurück zum Zitat Zaharias E, Cataldo J, Mackin L, Howie-Esquivel J. Simple measures of function and symptoms in hospitalized heart failure patients predict short-term cardiac event-free survival. Nurs Res Pract. 2014;815984.. Zaharias E, Cataldo J, Mackin L, Howie-Esquivel J. Simple measures of function and symptoms in hospitalized heart failure patients predict short-term cardiac event-free survival. Nurs Res Pract. 2014;815984..
82.
Zurück zum Zitat Lo AX, Donnelly JP, McGwin G, Bittner V, Ahmed A, Brown CJ. Impact of gait speed and instrumental activities of daily living on all-cause mortality in adults ≥65 years with heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(6):797–801.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Lo AX, Donnelly JP, McGwin G, Bittner V, Ahmed A, Brown CJ. Impact of gait speed and instrumental activities of daily living on all-cause mortality in adults ≥65 years with heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2015;115(6):797–801.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
83.
Zurück zum Zitat Pulignano G, Del Sindaco D, Di Lenarda A, Alunni G, Senni M, Tarantini L, et al. Incremental value of gait speed in predicting prognosis of older adults with heart failure: insights from the IMAGE-HF study. JACC Hear Fail. 2016;4(4):289–98.CrossRef Pulignano G, Del Sindaco D, Di Lenarda A, Alunni G, Senni M, Tarantini L, et al. Incremental value of gait speed in predicting prognosis of older adults with heart failure: insights from the IMAGE-HF study. JACC Hear Fail. 2016;4(4):289–98.CrossRef
84.
Zurück zum Zitat Chaudhry SI, McAvay G, Chen S, Whitson H, Newman AB, Krumholz HM, et al. Risk factors for hospital admission among older persons with newly diagnosed heart failure: findings from the cardiovascular health study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(6):635–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chaudhry SI, McAvay G, Chen S, Whitson H, Newman AB, Krumholz HM, et al. Risk factors for hospital admission among older persons with newly diagnosed heart failure: findings from the cardiovascular health study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61(6):635–42.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
85.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsuzawa R, Nozaki K, Maekawa E, et al. Incremental value of objective frailty assessment to predict mortality in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure. J Card Fail. 2018;24(11):723–32.PubMedCrossRef Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsuzawa R, Nozaki K, Maekawa E, et al. Incremental value of objective frailty assessment to predict mortality in elderly patients hospitalized for heart failure. J Card Fail. 2018;24(11):723–32.PubMedCrossRef
86.
Zurück zum Zitat Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsuzawa R, Nozaki K, Nakamura T, et al. Short-term change in gait speed and clinical outcomes in older patients with acute heart failure. Circ J. 2019;83(9):1860–7.PubMedCrossRef Tanaka S, Kamiya K, Hamazaki N, Matsuzawa R, Nozaki K, Nakamura T, et al. Short-term change in gait speed and clinical outcomes in older patients with acute heart failure. Circ J. 2019;83(9):1860–7.PubMedCrossRef
87.
Zurück zum Zitat Rodríguez-Pascual C, Paredes-Galán E, Ferrero-Martínez AI, González-Guerrero JL, Hornillos-Calvo M, Menendez-Colino R, et al. The frailty syndrome is associated with adverse health outcomes in very old patients with stable heart failure: a prospective study in six Spanish hospitals. Int J Cardiol. 2017;236:296–303.PubMedCrossRef Rodríguez-Pascual C, Paredes-Galán E, Ferrero-Martínez AI, González-Guerrero JL, Hornillos-Calvo M, Menendez-Colino R, et al. The frailty syndrome is associated with adverse health outcomes in very old patients with stable heart failure: a prospective study in six Spanish hospitals. Int J Cardiol. 2017;236:296–303.PubMedCrossRef
88.
Zurück zum Zitat Vidán MT, Blaya-Novakova V, Sánchez E, Ortiz J, Serra-Rexach JA, Bueno H. Prevalence and prognostic impact of frailty and its components in non-dependent elderly patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(7):869–75.PubMedCrossRef Vidán MT, Blaya-Novakova V, Sánchez E, Ortiz J, Serra-Rexach JA, Bueno H. Prevalence and prognostic impact of frailty and its components in non-dependent elderly patients with heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail. 2016;18(7):869–75.PubMedCrossRef
89.
Zurück zum Zitat Shoemaker MJ, Curtis AB, Vangsnes E, Dickinson MG. Clinically meaningful change estimates for the six-minute walk test and daily activity in individuals with chronic heart failure. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2013;24(3):21–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Shoemaker MJ, Curtis AB, Vangsnes E, Dickinson MG. Clinically meaningful change estimates for the six-minute walk test and daily activity in individuals with chronic heart failure. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2013;24(3):21–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
90.
Zurück zum Zitat Fox KR, Ku P-W, Hillsdon M, Davis MG, Simmonds BAJ, Thompson JL, et al. Objectively assessed physical activity and lower limb function and prospective associations with mortality and newly diagnosed disease in UK older adults: an OPAL four-year follow-up study. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):261–8.PubMedCrossRef Fox KR, Ku P-W, Hillsdon M, Davis MG, Simmonds BAJ, Thompson JL, et al. Objectively assessed physical activity and lower limb function and prospective associations with mortality and newly diagnosed disease in UK older adults: an OPAL four-year follow-up study. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):261–8.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Zurück zum Zitat Corsonello A, Lattanzio F, Pedone C, Garasto S, Laino I, Bustacchini S, et al. Prognostic significance of the short physical performance battery in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. Rejuvenation Res. 2012;15(1):41–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Corsonello A, Lattanzio F, Pedone C, Garasto S, Laino I, Bustacchini S, et al. Prognostic significance of the short physical performance battery in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals. Rejuvenation Res. 2012;15(1):41–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
92.
Zurück zum Zitat Legrand D, Vaes B, Matheï C, Adriaensen W, Van Pottelbergh G, Degryse J-M. Muscle strength and physical performance as predictors of mortality, hospitalisation, and disability in the oldest old. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(6):1030–8.PubMedCrossRef Legrand D, Vaes B, Matheï C, Adriaensen W, Van Pottelbergh G, Degryse J-M. Muscle strength and physical performance as predictors of mortality, hospitalisation, and disability in the oldest old. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(6):1030–8.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Zurück zum Zitat Volpato S, Cavalieri M, Sioulis F, Guerra G, Maraldi C, Zuliani G, et al. Predictive value of the short physical performance battery following hospitalisation in older patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(1):89–96.PubMedCrossRef Volpato S, Cavalieri M, Sioulis F, Guerra G, Maraldi C, Zuliani G, et al. Predictive value of the short physical performance battery following hospitalisation in older patients. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2011;66(1):89–96.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Zurück zum Zitat Dodson JA, Arnold SV, Gosch KL, Gill TM, Spertus J, Krumholz HM, et al. Slow gait speed and risk of mortality or hospital readmission following myocardial infarction in the TRIUMPH registry. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(3):596–601.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Dodson JA, Arnold SV, Gosch KL, Gill TM, Spertus J, Krumholz HM, et al. Slow gait speed and risk of mortality or hospital readmission following myocardial infarction in the TRIUMPH registry. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(3):596–601.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
96.
Zurück zum Zitat Alfredsson J, Stebbins A, Brennan JM, Matsouaka R, Afilalo J, Peterson ED, et al. Gait speed predicts 30-day mortality after Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2016;133(14):1351–9.PubMedCrossRef Alfredsson J, Stebbins A, Brennan JM, Matsouaka R, Afilalo J, Peterson ED, et al. Gait speed predicts 30-day mortality after Transcatheter aortic valve replacement: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry. Circulation. 2016;133(14):1351–9.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Zurück zum Zitat Chainani V, Shaharyar S, Dave K, Choksi V, Ravindranathan S, Hanno R, et al. Objective measures of the frailty syndrome (hand grip strength and gait speed) and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review. Int J Cardiol. 2016;215:487–93.PubMedCrossRef Chainani V, Shaharyar S, Dave K, Choksi V, Ravindranathan S, Hanno R, et al. Objective measures of the frailty syndrome (hand grip strength and gait speed) and cardiovascular mortality: a systematic review. Int J Cardiol. 2016;215:487–93.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Zurück zum Zitat Yamamoto S, Yamaga T, Nishie K, Sakai Y, Ishida T, Oka K, et al. Impact of physical performance on prognosis among patients with heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiol. 2020;76(2):139–46. Yamamoto S, Yamaga T, Nishie K, Sakai Y, Ishida T, Oka K, et al. Impact of physical performance on prognosis among patients with heart failure: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiol. 2020;76(2):139–46.
99.
Zurück zum Zitat Boxer RS, Wang Z, Walsh SJ, Hager D, Kenny AM. The utility of the 6-minute walk test as a measure of frailty in older adults with heart failure. Am J Geriatr Cardiol. 2008;17(1):7–12.PubMedCrossRef Boxer RS, Wang Z, Walsh SJ, Hager D, Kenny AM. The utility of the 6-minute walk test as a measure of frailty in older adults with heart failure. Am J Geriatr Cardiol. 2008;17(1):7–12.PubMedCrossRef
100.
Zurück zum Zitat Bagnall NM, Faiz O, Darzi A, Athanasiou T. What is the utility of preoperative frailty assessment for risk stratification in cardiac surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17(2):398–402.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bagnall NM, Faiz O, Darzi A, Athanasiou T. What is the utility of preoperative frailty assessment for risk stratification in cardiac surgery? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;17(2):398–402.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
101.
Zurück zum Zitat Giannitsi S, Bougiakli M, Bechlioulis A, Kotsia A, Michalis LK, Naka KK. 6-minute walking test: a useful tool in the management of heart failure patients. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;13:1–10.CrossRef Giannitsi S, Bougiakli M, Bechlioulis A, Kotsia A, Michalis LK, Naka KK. 6-minute walking test: a useful tool in the management of heart failure patients. Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2019;13:1–10.CrossRef
102.
Zurück zum Zitat Zielinska D, Bellwon J, Rynkiewicz A, Elkady MA. Prognostic value of the six-minute walk test in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a literature review. Rehabil Res Pract. 2013;2013:965494.PubMedPubMedCentral Zielinska D, Bellwon J, Rynkiewicz A, Elkady MA. Prognostic value of the six-minute walk test in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a literature review. Rehabil Res Pract. 2013;2013:965494.PubMedPubMedCentral
103.
Zurück zum Zitat Pollentier B, Irons SL, Benedetto CM, Dibenedetto A-M, Loton D, Seyler RD, et al. Examination of the six minute walk test to determine functional capacity in people with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2010;21(1):13–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Pollentier B, Irons SL, Benedetto CM, Dibenedetto A-M, Loton D, Seyler RD, et al. Examination of the six minute walk test to determine functional capacity in people with chronic heart failure: a systematic review. Cardiopulm Phys Ther J. 2010;21(1):13–21.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
104.
Zurück zum Zitat Jeong SW, Kim SH, Kang SH, Kim HJ, Yoon CH, Youn TJ, et al. Mortality reduction with physical activity in patients with and without cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(43):3547–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Jeong SW, Kim SH, Kang SH, Kim HJ, Yoon CH, Youn TJ, et al. Mortality reduction with physical activity in patients with and without cardiovascular disease. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(43):3547–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
105.
Zurück zum Zitat Kraus WE, Powell KE, Haskell WL, Janz KF, Campbell WW, Jakicic JM, et al. Physical activity, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1270–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Kraus WE, Powell KE, Haskell WL, Janz KF, Campbell WW, Jakicic JM, et al. Physical activity, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(6):1270–81.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
106.
Zurück zum Zitat Blond K, Brinkløv CF, Ried-Larsen M, Crippa A, Grøntved A. Association of high amounts of physical activity with mortality risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019:1–8. Blond K, Brinkløv CF, Ried-Larsen M, Crippa A, Grøntved A. Association of high amounts of physical activity with mortality risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2019:1–8.
107.
Zurück zum Zitat Afilalo J. Evaluating and treating frailty in cardiac rehabilitation. Clin Geriatr Med. 2019;35(4):445–57.PubMedCrossRef Afilalo J. Evaluating and treating frailty in cardiac rehabilitation. Clin Geriatr Med. 2019;35(4):445–57.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Physical functional performance and prognosis in patients with heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Iván José Fuentes-Abolafio
Brendon Stubbs
Luis Miguel Pérez-Belmonte
María Rosa Bernal-López
Ricardo Gómez-Huelgas
Antonio Ignacio Cuesta-Vargas
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2020
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-2261
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12872-020-01725-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

BMC Cardiovascular Disorders 1/2020 Zur Ausgabe

Update Kardiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.