Kevin Liou1, Suyen Ho2, Jennifer Fildes3, Sze-Yuan Ooi4. 1. Eastern Heart Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: Kevin.Liou@SESIAHS.HEALTH.NSW.GOV.AU. 2. Department of Anaesthetics, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and St George Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Cardiac Rehabilitation Unit, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Eastern Heart Clinic, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) significantly improves their outcome, although the optimal mode of exercise training remains undetermined. Previous analyses have been constrained by small sample sizes and a limited focus on clinical parameters. Further, results from previous studies have been contradicted by a recently published large RCT. METHOD: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials to compare high intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate intensity continuous training (MCT) in their ability to improve patients' aerobic exercise capacity (VO2peak) and various cardiovascular risk factors. We included patients with established coronary artery disease without or without impaired ejection fraction. RESULTS: Ten studies with 472 patients were included for analyses (218 HIIT, 254 MCT). Overall, HIIT was associated with a more pronounced incremental gain in participants' mean VO2peak when compared with MCT (+1.78mL/kg/min, 95% CI: 0.45-3.11). Moderate intensity continuous training however was associated with a more marked decline in patients' mean resting heart rate (-1.8/min, 95% CI: 0.71-2.89) and body weight (-0.48kg, 95% CI: 0.15-0.81). No significant differences were noted in the level of glucose, triglyceride and HDL at the end of exercise program between the two groups. CONCLUSION: High intensity interval training improves the mean VO2peak in patients with CAD more than MCT, although MCT was associated with a more pronounced numerical decline in patients' resting heart rate and body weight. The underlying mechanisms and clinical relevance of these results are uncertain, and remain a potential focus for future studies. Crown
INTRODUCTION: Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) significantly improves their outcome, although the optimal mode of exercise training remains undetermined. Previous analyses have been constrained by small sample sizes and a limited focus on clinical parameters. Further, results from previous studies have been contradicted by a recently published large RCT. METHOD: We performed a meta-analysis of published randomised controlled trials to compare high intensity interval training (HIIT) and moderate intensity continuous training (MCT) in their ability to improve patients' aerobic exercise capacity (VO2peak) and various cardiovascular risk factors. We included patients with established coronary artery disease without or without impaired ejection fraction. RESULTS: Ten studies with 472 patients were included for analyses (218 HIIT, 254 MCT). Overall, HIIT was associated with a more pronounced incremental gain in participants' mean VO2peak when compared with MCT (+1.78mL/kg/min, 95% CI: 0.45-3.11). Moderate intensity continuous training however was associated with a more marked decline in patients' mean resting heart rate (-1.8/min, 95% CI: 0.71-2.89) and body weight (-0.48kg, 95% CI: 0.15-0.81). No significant differences were noted in the level of glucose, triglyceride and HDL at the end of exercise program between the two groups. CONCLUSION: High intensity interval training improves the mean VO2peak in patients with CAD more than MCT, although MCT was associated with a more pronounced numerical decline in patients' resting heart rate and body weight. The underlying mechanisms and clinical relevance of these results are uncertain, and remain a potential focus for future studies. Crown
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: Ricardo Borges Viana; Claudio Andre Barbosa de Lira; João Pedro Araújo Naves; Victor Silveira Coswig; Fabrício Boscolo Del Vecchio; Rodrigo Ramirez-Campillo; Carlos Alexandre Vieira; Paulo Gentil Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Prisca Eser; Lukas D Trachsel; Thimo Marcin; David Herzig; Irina Freiburghaus; Stefano De Marchi; Andreas J Zimmermann; Jean-Paul Schmid; Matthias Wilhelm Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-17
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: Amanda L Hannan; Wayne Hing; Vini Simas; Mike Climstein; Jeff S Coombes; Rohan Jayasinghe; Joshua Byrnes; James Furness Journal: Open Access J Sports Med Date: 2018-01-26