Nele Pattyn1,2, Randy Beulque3, Véronique Cornelissen3. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Nele.pattyn@kuleuven.be. 2. Department of Cardiology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Nele.pattyn@kuleuven.be. 3. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a previous meta-analysis including nine trials comparing aerobic interval training with aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease, we found a significant difference in peak oxygen uptake favoring aerobic interval training. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to (1) update the original meta-analysis focussing on peak oxygen uptake and (2) evaluate the effect on secondary outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis by searching PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases up to March 2017. We included randomized trials comparing aerobic interval training and aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac and vascular function, and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers were identified (n = 1080; mean age 60.7 ± 10.7 years). Aerobic interval training resulted in a higher increase in peak oxygen uptake compared with aerobic continuous training in all patients (1.40 mL/kg/min; p < 0.001), and in the subgroups of patients with coronary artery disease (1.25 mL/kg/min; p = 0.001) and patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (1.46 mL/kg/min; p = 0.03). Moreover, a larger increase of the first ventilatory threshold and peak heart rate was observed after aerobic interval training in all patients. Other cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, and quality of life were equally affected. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis adds further evidence to the clinically significant larger increase in peak oxygen uptake following aerobic interval training vs. aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the safety of aerobic interval training and the sustainability of the training response over longer periods.
BACKGROUND: In a previous meta-analysis including nine trials comparing aerobic interval training with aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease, we found a significant difference in peak oxygen uptake favoring aerobic interval training. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to (1) update the original meta-analysis focussing on peak oxygen uptake and (2) evaluate the effect on secondary outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis by searching PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases up to March 2017. We included randomized trials comparing aerobic interval training and aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac and vascular function, and quality of life. RESULTS: Twenty-four papers were identified (n = 1080; mean age 60.7 ± 10.7 years). Aerobic interval training resulted in a higher increase in peak oxygen uptake compared with aerobic continuous training in all patients (1.40 mL/kg/min; p < 0.001), and in the subgroups of patients with coronary artery disease (1.25 mL/kg/min; p = 0.001) and patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (1.46 mL/kg/min; p = 0.03). Moreover, a larger increase of the first ventilatory threshold and peak heart rate was observed after aerobic interval training in all patients. Other cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, and quality of life were equally affected. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis adds further evidence to the clinically significant larger increase in peak oxygen uptake following aerobic interval training vs. aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the safety of aerobic interval training and the sustainability of the training response over longer periods.
Authors: Alessandro Mezzani; Larry F Hamm; Andrew M Jones; Patrick E McBride; Trine Moholdt; James A Stone; Axel Urhausen; Mark A Williams Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2012-10-26 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Darren E R Warburton; Donald C McKenzie; Mark J Haykowsky; Arlana Taylor; Paula Shoemaker; Andrew P Ignaszewski; Sammy Y Chan Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Lindsey Anderson; Neil Oldridge; David R Thompson; Ann-Dorthe Zwisler; Karen Rees; Nicole Martin; Rod S Taylor Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2016-01-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Agustín Manresa-Rocamora; Fernando Ribeiro; José Manuel Sarabia; Javier Íbias; Nórton Luís Oliveira; Francisco José Vera-García; Manuel Moya-Ramón Journal: Clin Auton Res Date: 2020-04-08 Impact factor: 4.435
Authors: Kaleen M Lavin; Paul M Coen; Liliana C Baptista; Margaret B Bell; Devin Drummer; Sara A Harper; Manoel E Lixandrão; Jeremy S McAdam; Samia M O'Bryan; Sofhia Ramos; Lisa M Roberts; Rick B Vega; Bret H Goodpaster; Marcas M Bamman; Thomas W Buford Journal: Compr Physiol Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 8.915
Authors: Marco Reer; Sophie Rauschenberg; Kuno Hottenrott; Rene Schwesig; Viktoria Heinze; Dana Huta; Nadja Schwark; Axel Schlitt Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2021-08-04
Authors: Muhammed Mustafa Atakan; Yanchun Li; Şükran Nazan Koşar; Hüseyin Hüsrev Turnagöl; Xu Yan Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390