Eduardo Caldas Costa1, Jacqueline L Hay2,3, Dustin S Kehler2,3, Kevin F Boreskie2,3, Rakesh C Arora3, Daniel Umpierre4, Andrea Szwajcer5, Todd A Duhamel2,3. 1. Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil. ecc@ufrnet.br. 2. Health, Leisure & Human Performance Research Institute, Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 3. Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, St-Boniface Hospital Albrechtsen Research Centre, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. 4. National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)-CNPq, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. 5. University of Manitoba Libraries, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise reduces blood pressure (BP), but it is unknown whether a high-intensity training approach can elicit a greater BP reduction in populations with elevated BP. This systematic review compared the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for reducing BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized trials comparing the chronic effects of HIIT versus MICT on BP in individuals with resting systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mmHg and/or under antihypertensive medication. Random-effects modelling was used to compare changes from pre- to post-intervention in resting and ambulatory BP between HIIT and MICT. Changes from pre- to post-intervention in maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) between HIIT and MICT were also meta-analyzed. Data were reported as weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ambulatory BP was excluded from the meta-analysis due to the limited number of studies (two studies). Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, no differences in resting systolic BP (MD - 0.22 mmHg [CI 95%, - 5.36 to 4.92], p = 0.93, I2 = 53%) and diastolic BP (MD - 0.38 mmHg [CI 95%, - 3.31 to 2.54], p = 0.74, I2 = 0%) were found between HIIT and MICT (seven studies; 164 participants). HIIT improved [Formula: see text]O2max to a greater magnitude than MICT (MD 2.13 ml/kg/min [CI 95%, 1.00 to 3.27], p < 0.01, I2 = 41%) with similar completion rates of the intervention and attendance at the exercise training sessions (nine studies; 245 participants). Limited data were available to compare the incidence of adverse events between HIIT and MICT. CONCLUSION: HIIT and MICT provided comparable reductions in resting BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. HIIT was associated with greater improvements in [Formula: see text]O2max when compared to MICT. Future randomized trials should investigate the efficacy of HIIT versus MICT for reducing ambulatory BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration (2016: CRD42016041885).
BACKGROUND: Aerobic exercise reduces blood pressure (BP), but it is unknown whether a high-intensity training approach can elicit a greater BP reduction in populations with elevated BP. This systematic review compared the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for reducing BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. METHODS: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized trials comparing the chronic effects of HIIT versus MICT on BP in individuals with resting systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mmHg and/or under antihypertensive medication. Random-effects modelling was used to compare changes from pre- to post-intervention in resting and ambulatory BP between HIIT and MICT. Changes from pre- to post-intervention in maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) between HIIT and MICT were also meta-analyzed. Data were reported as weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: Ambulatory BP was excluded from the meta-analysis due to the limited number of studies (two studies). Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, no differences in resting systolic BP (MD - 0.22 mmHg [CI 95%, - 5.36 to 4.92], p = 0.93, I2 = 53%) and diastolic BP (MD - 0.38 mmHg [CI 95%, - 3.31 to 2.54], p = 0.74, I2 = 0%) were found between HIIT and MICT (seven studies; 164 participants). HIIT improved [Formula: see text]O2max to a greater magnitude than MICT (MD 2.13 ml/kg/min [CI 95%, 1.00 to 3.27], p < 0.01, I2 = 41%) with similar completion rates of the intervention and attendance at the exercise training sessions (nine studies; 245 participants). Limited data were available to compare the incidence of adverse events between HIIT and MICT. CONCLUSION: HIIT and MICT provided comparable reductions in resting BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. HIIT was associated with greater improvements in [Formula: see text]O2max when compared to MICT. Future randomized trials should investigate the efficacy of HIIT versus MICT for reducing ambulatory BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration (2016: CRD42016041885).
Authors: Joyce S Ramos; Lance C Dalleck; Maximiano V Ramos; Fabio Borrani; Llion Roberts; Sjaan Gomersall; Kassia S Beetham; Katrin A Dias; Shelley E Keating; Robert G Fassett; James E Sharman; Jeff S Coombes Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Dena Ettehad; Connor A Emdin; Amit Kiran; Simon G Anderson; Thomas Callender; Jonathan Emberson; John Chalmers; Anthony Rodgers; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-12-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Harald Edvard Molmen-Hansen; Tomas Stolen; Arnt Erik Tjonna; Inger Lise Aamot; Inga Schjerve Ekeberg; Gjertrud Aunet Tyldum; Ulrik Wisloff; Charlotte Bjork Ingul; Asbjorn Stoylen Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2011-03-04 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Carol Ewing Garber; Bryan Blissmer; Michael R Deschenes; Barry A Franklin; Michael J Lamonte; I-Min Lee; David C Nieman; David P Swain Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 5.411
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: Ahmad Sabbahi; Richard Severin; Deepika Laddu; James E Sharman; Ross Arena; Cemal Ozemek Journal: Curr Cardiol Rep Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Ashley Bigaran; Eva Zopf; Jason Gardner; Andre La Gerche; Declan G Murphy; Erin J Howden; Michael K Baker; Prue Cormie Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Andrea D'Amuri; Juana Maria Sanz; Eleonora Capatti; Francesca Di Vece; Filippo Vaccari; Stefano Lazzer; Giovanni Zuliani; Edoardo Dalla Nora; Angelina Passaro Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2021-07-20