Prevention & lipidsCohort study
Cardiorespiratory exercise intensity prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation: do updated guideline recommendations reflect real individual effort responses?
- Retrospective multicentre study
- 12 centres across nine countries
Authors' conclusion
The AHA/AACVPR %HRR-based recommendations accurately reflect the lower boundary of moderate-intensity exercise but underestimate the transition to higher intensities.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with cardiometabolic disease undergoing cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET)
- Participants
- 2,554 patients · 12 centres · 9 countries
- Exposure
- Guideline %HRR-estimated HR vs HR at CPET ventilatory thresholds
- Outcome
- Agreement (Bland-Altman), calibration (Passing-Bablok) and prediction error (mean absolute error) of %HRR-estimated HR vs HR at VT1 and VT2
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
HR at ventilatory thresholds vs %HRR-estimated HR
| Group | Mean absolute error | Bias |
|---|---|---|
| Ventilatory thresholds (VT1) vs 40% HRR | 6.4 bpm | minimal |
| VT2 vs 59% HRR | 12.0 bpm | −11.4 bpm |
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Original publication
Cardiorespiratory exercise intensity prescription in cardiovascular rehabilitation: do updated guideline recommendations reflect real individual effort responses? Eur J Prev Cardiol. Published 10 June 2026. doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwag311
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it