Dataset Information

Short-term and Long-term Feasibility, Safety, and Efficacy of High-Intensity Interval Training in Cardiac Rehabilitation: The FITR Heart Study Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is recognized as a potent stimulus for improving cardiorespiratory fitness (volume of oxygen consumption [VO2] peak) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the feasibility, safety, and long-term effects of HIIT in this population are unclear.

Objective

To compare HIIT with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for feasibility, safety, adherence, and efficacy of improving VO2 peak in patients with CAD.

Design, setting, and participants

In this single-center randomized clinical trial, participants underwent 4 weeks of supervised training in a private hospital cardiac rehabilitation program, with subsequent home-based training and follow-up over 12 months. A total of 96 participants with angiographically proven CAD aged 18 to 80 years were enrolled, and 93 participants were medically cleared for participation following a cardiopulmonary exercise test. Data were collected from May 2016 to December 2018, and data were analyzed from December 2018 to August 2019.

Interventions

A 4 × 4-minute HIIT program or a 40-minute MICT program (usual care). Patients completed 3 sessions per week (2 supervised and 1 home-based session) for 4 weeks and 3 home-based sessions per week thereafter for 48 weeks.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was change in VO2 peak during the cardiopulmonary exercise test from baseline to 4 weeks. Further testing occurred at 3, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, safety, adherence, cardiovascular risk factors, and quality of life.

Results

Of 93 randomized participants, 78 (84%) were male, the mean (SD) age was 65 (8) years, and 46 were randomized to HIIT and 47 to MICT. A total of 86 participants completed testing at 4 weeks for the primary outcome, including 43 in the HIIT group and 43 in the MICT group; 69 completed testing at 12 months for VO2 peak, including 32 in the HIIT group and 37 in the MICT group. After 4 weeks, HIIT improved VO2 peak by 10% compared with 4% in the MICT group (mean [SD] oxygen uptake: HIIT, 2.9 [3.4] mL/kg/min; MICT, 1.2 [3.4] mL/kg/min; P = .02). After 12 months, there were similar improvements from baseline between groups, with a 10% improvement in the HIIT group and a 7% improvement in the MICT group (mean [SD] oxygen uptake: HIIT, 2.9 [4.5] mL/kg/min; MICT, 1.8 [4.3] mL/kg/min; P = .30). Both groups had high feasibility scores and low rates of withdrawal due to serious adverse events (3 participants in the HIIT group and 1 participant in the MICT group). One event occurred following exercise (hypotension) in the HIIT group. Over 12 months, both home-based HIIT and MICT had low rates of adherence (HIIT, 18 of 34 [53%]; MICT, 15 of 37 [41%]; P = .35) compared with the supervised stage (HIIT, 39 of 44 [91%]; MICT, 39 of 43 [91%]; P > .99).

Conclusions and relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, a 4-week HIIT program improved VO2 peak compared with MICT in patients with CAD attending cardiac rehabilitation. However, improvements in VO2 peak at 12 months were similar for both groups. HIIT was feasible and safe, with similar adherence to MICT over 12-month follow-up. These findings support inclusion of HIIT in cardiac rehabilitation programs as an adjunct or alternative modality to moderate-intensity exercise.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Identifier: ACTRN12615001292561.

SUBMITTER: Taylor JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7489382 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimExercise training regimes can lead to improvements in measures of cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), improved general health, and reduced morbidity and overall mortality risk. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) offers a time-efficient approach to improve CRF in healthy individuals, but the relative benefits of HIIT compared with traditional training methods are unknown in across different disease cohorts.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis compares CRF gains in randomized controlled trials of short-term (<8 wk) HIIT versus either no exercise control (CON) or moderate continuous training (MCT) within diseased cohorts. Literature searches of the following databases were performed: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and PubMed (all from inception to December 1, 2017), with further searches of Clinicaltrials.gov and citations via Google Scholar. Primary outcomes were effect on CRF variables: V˙O2peak and anaerobic threshold.ResultsThirty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. HIIT resulted in a clinically significant increase in V˙O2peak compared with CON (mean difference [MD] = 3.32 mL·kg·min, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.56-2.08). Overall HIIT provided added benefit to V˙O2peak over MCT (MD = 0.79 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.20-1.39). The benefit of HIIT was most marked in patients with cardiovascular disease when compared with MCT (V˙O2peak: MD = 1.66 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.60-2.73; anaerobic threshold: MD = 1.61 mL·kg·min, 95% CI = 0.33-2.90).ConclusionsHIIT elicits improvements in objective measures of CRF within 8 wk in diseased cohorts compared with no intervention. When compared with MCT, HIIT imparts statistically significant additional improvements in measures of CRF, with clinically important additional improvements in V˙O2peak in cardiovascular patients. Comparative efficacy of HIIT versus MCT combined with an often reduced time commitment may warrant HIIT's promotion as a viable clinical exercise intervention.

Project description:PurposeImproving cardiopulmonary reserve, or peak oxygen consumption( V˙ O2peak ), may reduce postoperative complications; however, this may be difficult to achieve between diagnosis and surgery. Our primary aim was to assess the efficacy of an approximate 14-session, preoperative high-intensity interval training(HIIT) program to increase V˙ O2peak by a clinically relevant 2 ml·kg-1 ·min-1 . Our secondary aim was to document clinical outcomes.MethodologyIn this prospective study, participants aged 45-85 undergoing major abdominal surgery were randomized to standard care or 14 sessions of HIIT over 4 weeks. HIIT sessions involved approximately 30 min of stationary cycling. Interval training alternated 1 min of high (with the goal of reaching 90% max heart rate at least once during the session) and low/moderate-intensity cycling. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing(CPET) measured the change in V˙ O2peak from baseline to surgery. Clinical outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay(LOS), and Short Form 36 quality of life questionnaire(SF-36).ResultsOf 63 participants, 46 completed both CPETs and 50 completed clinical follow-up. There was a significant improvement in the HIIT group's mean ± SD V˙ O2peak (HIIT 2.87 ± 1.94 ml·kg1 ·min-1 vs standard care 0.15 ± 1.93, with an overall difference of 2.73 ml·kg1 ·min-1 95%CI [1.53, 3.93] p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for clinical outcomes, although the observed differences consistently favored the exercise group. This was most notable for total number of complications (0.64 v 1.16 per patient, p = 0.07), SF-36 physical component score (p = 0.06), and LOS (mean 5.5 v 7.4 days, p = 0.07).ConclusionsThere was a significant improvement in V˙ O2peak with a four-week preoperative HIIT program. Further appropriately powered work is required to explore the impact of preoperative HIIT on postoperative clinical outcomes.

Project description:Poststroke guidelines recommend moderate-intensity, continuous aerobic training (MCT) to improve aerobic capacity and mobility after stroke. High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been shown to be more effective than MCT among healthy adults and people with heart disease. However, HIT and MCT have not been compared previously among people with stroke.The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and justification for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HIT and MCT in people with chronic stroke.A preliminary RCT was conducted.The study was conducted in a cardiovascular stress laboratory and a rehabilitation research laboratory.Ambulatory people at least 6 months poststroke participated.Both groups trained 25 minutes, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks. The HIT strategy involved 30-second bursts at maximum-tolerated treadmill speed alternated with 30- to 60-second rest periods. The MCT strategy involved continuous treadmill walking at 45% to 50% of heart rate reserve.Measurements included recruitment and attendance statistics, qualitative HIT acceptability, adverse events, and the following blinded outcome variables: peak oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold, metabolic cost of gait, fractional utilization, fastest treadmill speed, 10-Meter Walk Test, and Six-Minute Walk Test.During the 8-month recruitment period, 26 participants consented to participate. Eighteen participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the HIT group (n=13) or the MCT group (n=5). Eleven out of the 13 HIT group participants attended all sessions. Participants reported that HIT was acceptable and no serious adverse events occurred. Standardized effect size estimates between groups were moderate to very large for most outcome measures. Only 30% of treadmill speed gains in the HIT group translated into overground gait speed improvement.The study was not designed to definitively test safety or efficacy.Although further protocol optimization is needed to improve overground translation of treadmill gains, a definitive RCT comparing HIT and MCT appears to be feasible and warranted.