Objective: To examine and summarise evidence from meta-analyses of cohort studies that evaluated the predictive associations between baseline cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) and health outcomes among adults.
Design: Overview of systematic reviews.
Data source: Five bibliographic databases were searched from January 2002 to March 2024.
Results: From the 9062 papers identified, we included 26 systematic reviews. We found eight meta-analyses that described five unique mortality outcomes among general populations. CRF had the largest risk reduction for all-cause mortality when comparing high versus low CRF (HR=0.47; 95% CI 0.39 to 0.56). A dose-response relationship for every 1-metabolic equivalent of task (MET) higher level of CRF was associated with a 11%-17% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR=0.89; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.92, and HR=0.83; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.88). For incident outcomes, nine meta-analyses described 12 unique outcomes. CRF was associated with the largest risk reduction in incident heart failure when comparing high versus low CRF (HR=0.31; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.49). A dose-response relationship for every 1-MET higher level of CRF was associated with a 18% reduction in heart failure (HR=0.82; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.84). Among those living with chronic conditions, nine meta-analyses described four unique outcomes in nine patient groups. CRF was associated with the largest risk reduction for cardiovascular mortality among those living with cardiovascular disease when comparing high versus low CRF (HR=0.27; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48). The certainty of the evidence across all studies ranged from very low-to-moderate according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.
Conclusion: We found consistent evidence that high CRF is strongly associated with lower risk for a variety of mortality and incident chronic conditions in general and clinical populations.
Keywords: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cohort Studies; Physical fitness; Review.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.