Cargando…

High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Aerobic capacity has been shown to be inversely proportionate to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving cardiorespirator...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hannan, Amanda L, Hing, Wayne, Simas, Vini, Climstein, Mike, Coombes, Jeff S, Jayasinghe, Rohan, Byrnes, Joshua, Furness, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29416382
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S150596
_version_ 1783296410081296384
author Hannan, Amanda L
Hing, Wayne
Simas, Vini
Climstein, Mike
Coombes, Jeff S
Jayasinghe, Rohan
Byrnes, Joshua
Furness, James
author_facet Hannan, Amanda L
Hing, Wayne
Simas, Vini
Climstein, Mike
Coombes, Jeff S
Jayasinghe, Rohan
Byrnes, Joshua
Furness, James
author_sort Hannan, Amanda L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Aerobic capacity has been shown to be inversely proportionate to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving cardiorespiratory fitness within the cardiac population. Previously published systematic reviews in cardiovascular disease have neither investigated the effect that the number of weeks of intervention has on cardiorespiratory fitness changes, nor have adverse events been collated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the cardiac population that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT and to collate adverse events. METHODS: A critical narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted after systematically searching relevant databases up to July 2017. We searched for RCTs that compared cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT interventions within the cardiac population. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, involving 953 participants (465 for HIIT and 488 for MICT) were included in the analysis. HIIT was significantly superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness overall (SMD 0.34 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.2–0.48]; p<0.00001; I(2)=28%). There were no deaths or cardiac events requiring hospitalization reported in any study during training. Overall, there were more adverse events reported as a result of the MICT (n=14) intervention than the HIIT intervention (n=9). However, some adverse events (n=5) were not classified by intervention group. CONCLUSION: HIIT is superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness are significant for CR programs of >6-week duration. Programs of 7–12 weeks’ duration resulted in the largest improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness for patients with coronary artery disease. HIIT appears to be as safe as MICT for CR participants.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5790162
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57901622018-02-07 High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis Hannan, Amanda L Hing, Wayne Simas, Vini Climstein, Mike Coombes, Jeff S Jayasinghe, Rohan Byrnes, Joshua Furness, James Open Access J Sports Med Review BACKGROUND: Aerobic capacity has been shown to be inversely proportionate to cardiovascular mortality and morbidity and there is growing evidence that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in improving cardiorespiratory fitness within the cardiac population. Previously published systematic reviews in cardiovascular disease have neither investigated the effect that the number of weeks of intervention has on cardiorespiratory fitness changes, nor have adverse events been collated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the cardiac population that investigated cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT and to collate adverse events. METHODS: A critical narrative synthesis and meta-analysis was conducted after systematically searching relevant databases up to July 2017. We searched for RCTs that compared cardiorespiratory fitness changes resulting from HIIT versus MICT interventions within the cardiac population. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, involving 953 participants (465 for HIIT and 488 for MICT) were included in the analysis. HIIT was significantly superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness overall (SMD 0.34 mL/kg/min; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.2–0.48]; p<0.00001; I(2)=28%). There were no deaths or cardiac events requiring hospitalization reported in any study during training. Overall, there were more adverse events reported as a result of the MICT (n=14) intervention than the HIIT intervention (n=9). However, some adverse events (n=5) were not classified by intervention group. CONCLUSION: HIIT is superior to MICT in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in participants of cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness are significant for CR programs of >6-week duration. Programs of 7–12 weeks’ duration resulted in the largest improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness for patients with coronary artery disease. HIIT appears to be as safe as MICT for CR participants. Dove Medical Press 2018-01-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5790162/ /pubmed/29416382 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S150596 Text en © 2018 Hannan et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Review
Hannan, Amanda L
Hing, Wayne
Simas, Vini
Climstein, Mike
Coombes, Jeff S
Jayasinghe, Rohan
Byrnes, Joshua
Furness, James
High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training within cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790162/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29416382
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OAJSM.S150596
work_keys_str_mv AT hannanamandal highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT hingwayne highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT simasvini highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT climsteinmike highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT coombesjeffs highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT jayasingherohan highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT byrnesjoshua highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT furnessjames highintensityintervaltrainingversusmoderateintensitycontinuoustrainingwithincardiacrehabilitationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis