Dataset Information

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training on Physical Health in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: The effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) on physical health in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients has long been established, while the optimal exercise mode remains to be determined. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) in CAD patients. Databases were searched up to December 2020. Twenty-five studies with 1272 participants were analyzed. The results showed that both HIIT and MICT induced significant VO_2peak improvement with a 4.52 mL/kg/min (p < 0.01) and 2.36 mL/kg/min (p < 0.01), respectively. Additionally, a larger improvement of VO_2peak (1.92 mL/kg/min, p < 0.01) was observed in HIIT over MICT. HIIT with medium and long intervals, higher work/rest ratio induced larger VO_2peak improvement than the compared subgroup. Interestingly, non-isocaloric exercise protocols induced larger VO_2peak improvement compared with isocaloric protocols. In addition, both HIIT and MICT significantly increased anaerobic threshold and peak power with HIIT superior to MICT. No significant different changes were observed in blood pressure after HIIT or MICT intervention, however when HIIT was compared with MICT, MICT seems superior to HIIT in reducing systolic blood pressure (-3.61 mmHg, p < 0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (-2.37 mmHg, p < 0.01). Although, HIIT and MICT induced significant improvement of most other parameters, like HR_rest, HR_peak, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), quality of life (QoL), no significant differences were noted between groups. This meta-analysis suggested that HIIT is superior to MICT in increasing VO_2peak, anaerobic threshold, peak power in CAD patients. Additionally, the efficacy of HIIT over MICT in improving VO_2peaks was influenced by HIIT intervals, work/rest ratio and total caloric consumption. Both HIIT and MICT did not significantly influence resting BP, however, MICT seemed to be more effective in reducing BP than HIIT. HIIT and MICT equally significantly influenced HR_rest, HR_peak, HRR1min, OUES, LVEF%, QoL.

SUBMITTER: Du L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8622669 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundExercise training significantly improves cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients, but high-intensity interval training (HIIT) is not superior to moderate-intensity interval training (MIIT). Whether HIIT is more beneficial than MIIT in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains unclear.MethodsOn August 29, 2021, we conducted a comprehensive computerized literature search of the Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases using the following keywords: "HF or diastolic HF or HFpEF or HF with normal ejection fraction and exercise training or aerobic exercise or isometric exercises or physical activity or cardiac rehabilitation." Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting comparisons between HIIT and MIIT in HFpEF were included in the final analysis to maintain consistency and obtain robust pooled estimates. Methodological quality was assessed based on the ratings of individual biases. To generate an overall test statistic, the data were analyzed using the random-effects model for a generic inverse variance. Outcome measures were reported as an odds ratio, and confidence intervals (CIs) were set at 95%. The study followed PRISMA guidelines.ResultsThis meta-analysis included only RCTs comparing the efficacy of HIIT and MIIT in HFpEF patients. This study included 150 patients from 3 RCTs. In the current pooled data analysis, HIIT significantly improves diastolic function measured by E/A ratio (WMD, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.23, P = .009). However, no significant change was observed in the diastolic function measured by E/e' ratio (WMD, 0.39; 95% CI, -2.40 to 3.18, P = .78), and CRF evaluated by both VO2 (mL/kg per min; WMD, -0.86; 95%CI, -5.27 to 3.55, P = .70) and VE/CO2 slope (WMD, 0.15; 95% CI, -10.24 to 10.53, P = .98), and systolic function (EF-WMD, -2.39; 95% CI, -12.16% to 7.38%, P = .63) between HIIT and MIIT in patients with HFpEF.ConclusionIn HFpEF patients, HIIT may be superior to MIIT in improving diastolic function, measured by E/A, but not CRF and left ventricular systolic function.

Project description:Purpose: The main objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) and of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on cardiometabolic health in childhood obesity and determine whether HIIT is a superior form of training in managing obese children's metabolic health. Methods: Relevant studies published in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, EBSCO, and CNKI were searched, restricted to those published from inception to 1 October 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) depicting the effect of HIIT on childhood obesity were included. Results: Nine RCTs involving 309 participants were included in the meta-analysis. Among the 309 participants, 158 subjects were randomized for HIIT, while the others were randomized for MICT. Significant differences were observed in the body weight (mean difference [MD] = -5.45 kg, p = 0.001), body mass index (BMI; MD = -1.661 kg/m2, p = 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (SBP; MD = -3.994 mmHg, p = 0.003), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; MD = -3.087 mmHg, p = 0.0001) in the HIIT group relative to the baseline values. Similar effects were found in the MICT group, as depicted by the significantly decreased values for body weight (MD = -4.604 kg, p = 0.0001), BMI (MD = -2.366 kg/m2, p = 0.0001), SBP (MD = -3.089 mmHg, p = 0.019), and DBP (MD = -3.087 mmHg, p = 0.0001). However, no significant differences were observed in the changes in body weight, BMI, SBP, or DBP between the HIIT and MICT groups. Furthermore, our studies showed that both HIIT and MICT could significantly improve VO2peak (HIIT, MD = 4.17 ml/kg/min, 95% CI: 3.191 to 5.163, p = 0.0001; MICT, MD = 1.704 ml/kg/min, 95% CI: 0.279 to 3.130, p = 0.019). HIIT also showed more positive effects on VO2peak (SMD = 0.468, 95% CI: 0.040 to 0.897, p = 0.006) than MICT. Conclusion: HIIT positively affects the cardiometabolic risk factors in childhood obesity. Similar positive effects on body composition and blood pressure were established. Moreover, HIIT can improve cardiorespiratory fitness more significantly than MICT. These findings indicate that HIIT may be an alternative and effective training method for managing childhood obesity. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018111308.

Project description:Background:Little is known about the effect of exercise in young heart transplant recipients, and results on group level is lacking. This study summarizes the findings of the youngest participants in two previous randomized controlled trials. Method:This is a hypothesis-generating study reporting the main results from the youngest participants in two larger randomized controlled trials investigating the effect of high-intensity interval training (HIT). The article summarizes the main results from 28 young participants (<?40?year of age) who have participated in two previous studies which evaluated the effect of HIT vs. controls in adult heart transplant recipients. One of the studies included de novo heart transplant recipients and the other included maintenance heart transplant recipients.All study tests were performed in-hospital, in the specialist health care setting, but the exercise intervention was carried out locally, in cooperation with the primary health care. In both studies the exercise intervention lasted for 9-12?months. In one study, HIT (85-95% of peak effort) was compared to controls (no specific intervention), and in the other study HIT was compared to moderate, continuous exercise (MICT, 60-80% of peak effort). The main outcome measure was peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) and a secondary endpoint was muscle strength. Results:The summarized findings from the youngest heart transplant recipients in these two studies demonstrated mainly that the improvement in peak oxygen uptake among the younger recipients (<?40?years) was much larger (4.7 vs. 1.2?ml/kg/min and 7.0 vs. 2.2?ml/kg/min) compared to the improvement among the older recipients (? 40?years), and in accordance with results from adult heart transplant populations: HIT, compared to MICT, induced the largest improvement in peak oxygen consumption, also in the younger heart transplant recipients. Conclusions:These results suggest that young heart transplant recipients have a greater effect of HIT than of MICT and may also suggest that younger recipients benefit more from high-intensity interval training than their older co-patients. However, larger randomized studies focusing on the young heart transplant population is strongly needed to confirm this hypothesis. Trial registration:Clinical trial registrations: NCT01796379 and NCT01091194.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral systematic reviews have been published to investigate the effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in schools. However, there has been limited attention given to understanding the functioning of the intervention processes, which is of paramount importance for interpreting and translating the intervention effectiveness. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the extent to which process evaluation is measured in school-based HIIT interventions and to explore the effects of process evaluation and intervention characteristics on cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), body composition, muscular strength, and blood pressure.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in SPORT Discus (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, Scopus, Medline (Ovid) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The extent to which process evaluation is measured was narratively reported, alongside with the guidance of process evaluation of complex interventions by UK Medical Research Council. Meta-analyses and meta-regressions were conducted to determine the effects of process evaluation and intervention characteristics to the intervention outcomes.ResultsThe literature search identified 77 studies reporting on 45 school-based HIIT interventions. In total, five interventions reported process evaluation in a section or in a separate study, and only one intervention adopted a process evaluation framework. On average, 6 out of 12 process evaluation measures were reported in all interventions. Subgroup analyses did not indicate any beneficial treatment effects for studies with process evaluation group, whereas all pooled data and studies without process evaluation group showed significant improvement for CRF and body composition.ConclusionProcess evaluation is frequently omitted in the literature of school-based HIIT in children and adolescents. Although reporting of process evaluation measures may not directly associate with better intervention outcomes, it allows accurate interpretation of intervention outcomes, thereby enhancing the generalisability and dissemination of the interventions.

Dataset Information

Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training on Physical Health in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets