Paul D Xanthos1, Brett A Gordon2, Michael I C Kingsley3. 1. Discipline of Exercise Physiology, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: p.xanthos@latrobe.edu.au. 2. Discipline of Exercise Physiology, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: b.gordon@latrobe.edu.au. 3. Discipline of Exercise Physiology, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Electronic address: m.kingsley@latrobe.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in cardiac rehabilitation programs, but the optimal prescription of resistance training is unknown. This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation consisting of resistance training either alone (RT) or in combination with aerobic training (CT) with aerobic training only (AT) on outcomes of physical function. Further, resistance training intensity and intervention duration were examined to identify if these factors moderate efficacy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies investigating RT, coronary heart disease and physical function. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed when possible and qualitative analysis was performed for the remaining data. RESULTS: Improvements in peak oxygen uptake (WMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.20-1.10), peak work capacity (SMD: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.11-0.64) and muscular strength (SMD: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87) significantly favoured CT over AT with moderate quality evidence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect when comparing RT and AT. Shorter duration CT was superior to shorter duration AT for improving peak oxygen uptake and muscular strength (low quality evidence) while longer duration CT was only superior to longer duration AT in improving muscular strength (moderate quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: CT is more beneficial than AT alone for improving physical function. Although preliminary findings are promising, more high-quality evidence is required to determine the efficacy of high intensity resistance training. Shorter duration interventions that include resistance training might allow patients to return to their normal activities of daily living earlier.
BACKGROUND: Resistance training has demonstrated efficacy in cardiac rehabilitation programs, but the optimal prescription of resistance training is unknown. This systematic review with meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation consisting of resistance training either alone (RT) or in combination with aerobic training (CT) with aerobic training only (AT) on outcomes of physical function. Further, resistance training intensity and intervention duration were examined to identify if these factors moderate efficacy. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched to identify studies investigating RT, coronary heart disease and physical function. The overall quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Meta-analyses were performed when possible and qualitative analysis was performed for the remaining data. RESULTS: Improvements in peak oxygen uptake (WMD: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.20-1.10), peak work capacity (SMD: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.11-0.64) and muscular strength (SMD: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87) significantly favoured CT over AT with moderate quality evidence. There was no evidence of a difference in effect when comparing RT and AT. Shorter duration CT was superior to shorter duration AT for improving peak oxygen uptake and muscular strength (low quality evidence) while longer duration CT was only superior to longer duration AT in improving muscular strength (moderate quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: CT is more beneficial than AT alone for improving physical function. Although preliminary findings are promising, more high-quality evidence is required to determine the efficacy of high intensity resistance training. Shorter duration interventions that include resistance training might allow patients to return to their normal activities of daily living earlier.
Authors: Chul Kim; Jidong Sung; Jong Hwa Lee; Won Seok Kim; Goo Joo Lee; Sungju Jee; Il Young Jung; Ueon Woo Rah; Byung Ok Kim; Kyoung Hyo Choi; Bum Sun Kwon; Seung Don Yoo; Heui Je Bang; Hyung Ik Shin; Yong Wook Kim; Heeyoune Jung; Eung Ju Kim; Jung Hwan Lee; In Hyun Jung; Jae Seung Jung; Jong Young Lee; Jae Young Han; Eun Young Han; Yu Hui Won; Woosik Han; Sora Baek; Kyung Lim Joa; Sook Joung Lee; Ae Ryoung Kim; So Young Lee; Jihee Kim; Hee Eun Choi; Byeong Ju Lee; Soon Kim Journal: Korean Circ J Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 3.243
Authors: Jean-Baptiste Meslet; Benoit Dugué; Ugo Brisset; Alain Pianeta; Sophie Kubas Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Olga Ribeiro-Torres; Arilson Fernandes M de Sousa; Eliseo Iglesias-Soler; Maelán Fontes-Villalba; Hassane Zouhal; François Carré; Carl Foster; Daniel Boullosa Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 2.430