Adrian D Elliott1, Kanchani Rajopadhyaya2, David J Bentley3, John F Beltrame2, Edoardo C Aromataris4. 1. School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia; School of Translational Health Science, University of Adelaide, Australia. Electronic address: adrian.elliott@adelaide.edu.au. 2. The Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Discipline of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Australia. 3. School of Medical Sciences, University of Adelaide, Australia. 4. School of Translational Health Science, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High aerobic capacity is inversely related to cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Recent studies suggest greater improvements in aerobic capacity with high-intensity interval training (interval) compared to moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise (continuous). Therefore we perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of INTERVAL versus CONTINUOUS in aerobic capacity, amongst patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved ejection fraction METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov and TROVE for randomised controlled trials comparing INTERVAL with CONTINUOUS in patients with CAD. Studies published in the English language up to December 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Aerobic capacity, quantified by peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) post exercise training was extracted and compared post-intervention between INTERVAL and CONTINUOUS by way of a fixed model meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes including anaerobic threshold, blood pressure and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) were also analysed. RESULTS: Six independent studies with 229 patients (n=99 randomised to INTERVAL) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significantly higher increase in VO2peak following INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS (Weighted Mean Difference=1.53 ml•kg(-1)min(-1), 95% CI 0.84 to 2.23) with homogeneity displayed between studies (Chi Squared=2.69; P=0.7). Significant effects of INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS were also found for anaerobic threshold but not systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In patients with CAD, INTERVAL appears more effective than CONTINUOUS for the improvement of aerobic capacity in patients with CAD. However, long-term studies assessing morbidity and mortality following INTERVAL are required before this approach can be more widely adopted.
BACKGROUND: High aerobic capacity is inversely related to cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Recent studies suggest greater improvements in aerobic capacity with high-intensity interval training (interval) compared to moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise (continuous). Therefore we perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of INTERVAL versus CONTINUOUS in aerobic capacity, amongst patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved ejection fraction METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov and TROVE for randomised controlled trials comparing INTERVAL with CONTINUOUS in patients with CAD. Studies published in the English language up to December 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Aerobic capacity, quantified by peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) post exercise training was extracted and compared post-intervention between INTERVAL and CONTINUOUS by way of a fixed model meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes including anaerobic threshold, blood pressure and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) were also analysed. RESULTS: Six independent studies with 229 patients (n=99 randomised to INTERVAL) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significantly higher increase in VO2peak following INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS (Weighted Mean Difference=1.53 ml•kg(-1)min(-1), 95% CI 0.84 to 2.23) with homogeneity displayed between studies (Chi Squared=2.69; P=0.7). Significant effects of INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS were also found for anaerobic threshold but not systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In patients with CAD, INTERVAL appears more effective than CONTINUOUS for the improvement of aerobic capacity in patients with CAD. However, long-term studies assessing morbidity and mortality following INTERVAL are required before this approach can be more widely adopted.
Authors: Gabrielle Brazg; Meghan Fahey; Carey L Holleran; Mark Connolly; Jane Woodward; Patrick W Hennessy; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Eduardo Caldas Costa; Jacqueline L Hay; Dustin S Kehler; Kevin F Boreskie; Rakesh C Arora; Daniel Umpierre; Andrea Szwajcer; Todd A Duhamel Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Robert E Heinl; Devinder S Dhindsa; Elliot N Mahlof; William M Schultz; Johnathan C Ricketts; Tina Varghese; Amirhossein Esmaeeli; Marc P Allard-Ratick; Anthony J Millard; Heval M Kelli; Pratik B Sandesara; Danny J Eapen; Laurence Sperling Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2016-07-22 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Gordon McGregor; Simon Nichols; Thomas Hamborg; Lucy Bryning; Rhiannon Tudor-Edwards; David Markland; Jenny Mercer; Stefan Birkett; Stuart Ennis; Richard Powell; Brian Begg; Mark J Haykowsky; Prithwish Banerjee; Lee Ingle; Rob Shave; Karianne Backx Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Christian Tapking; Daniel Popp; David N Herndon; Andrew M Armenta; Ludwik K Branski; Andrew J Murton; Oscar E Suman Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 1.845