Dataset Information

Effect of home-based high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training in patients with myocardial infarction: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Supervised high-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been proposed to be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for improving exercise capacity, but there are not sufficient information effects of home-based HIIT and MICT in patients with myocardial infarction (MI).

Aims

To compare the effects of home-based HIIT and MICT in patients with MI.

Methods

Twenty-one patients with MI were randomly assigned to one of two home-based exercise modes: HIIT group and MICT group. Home-based HIIT and MICT were performed twice a week for 12 weeks with an exercise intensity of 85-95% of heart rate (HR) reserve and 70-75% HR reserve, respectively. The primary outcome measure was functional capacity. Secondary outcomes included resting blood pressure and HR, peripheral oxygen saturation, pulmonary function and respiratory muscle strength, dyspnea severity, body composition (body fat%, body mass ındex (BMI), fat free muscle), peripheral muscle strength, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

Results

Functional capacity, measured by 6-minute walk test, increased in HIIT and MICT group (p < 0.05). Resting BP and HR, body fat%, and BMI were significantly decreased, and pulmonary functions, respiratory-peripheral muscle strength, and HRQoL were significantly increased in the both groups (p < 0.05). Home-based HIIT was more effective than MICT in improving pulmonary functions and lower extremity muscle strength (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

This study suggests that HIIT and MICT can be applied at home-based in patients with MI and play an important role in improving functional capacity, health outcomes, and HRQoL.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials Number: NCT04407624.

SUBMITTER: Yakut H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8736320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionSince adolescents with obesity are prone to bone fragility during weight loss, the aim was to compare the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on bone density, geometry, and strength.MethodsSixty-one adolescents were randomly assigned to 2 cycling trainings (HIIT and MICT) and a control (CTR, without training) group. Anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with hip structural analysis and the trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed before and after the 16-week intervention.ResultsBody mass index (BMI) and fat mass (FM) percentage decreased at T1 versus T0 in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p = 0.01 for MICT), though to a larger extent in HIIT (p < 0.05). Total body bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) increased in both training groups (p < 0.001), but to a greater extent in HIIT for BMC (p < 0.05). Lumbar spine BMD and BMC increased in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p < 0.01 for MICT), with a time × group interaction between HIIT and CTR (p < 0.05) only. TBS increased in both training groups (p < 0.01 for HIIT, p < 0.05 for MICT). Hip BMD and BMC increased in both HIIT (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and MICT (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). At the narrow neck (NN), endocortical diameter, width (p < 0.01), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and section modulus (Z) (p < 0.05) increased only in the HIIT group, such as BMD and Z (p < 0.05) at the intertrochanteric region (IT) and average cortical thickness (p < 0.001) and width (p < 0.05) at the femoral shaft. At the NN and IT, the buckling ratio decreased only in the HIIT group (p < 0.05), predicting higher resistance to fracture.ConclusionsIn addition to inducing greater BMI and FM percentage decreases in comparison to MICT, HIIT improves multisite bone density, geometry, and strength, which heighten the justification for HIIT as part of weight loss interventions in adolescents with obesity.

Project description:BackgroundInterstitial lung disease is a debilitating condition associated with significant dyspnoea, fatigue, and poor exercise tolerance. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective and key intervention in people with interstitial lung disease. However, despite the best efforts of patients and clinicians, many of those who participate are not achieving clinically meaningful benefits. This assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial aims to compare the clinical benefits of high intensity interval exercise training versus the standard pulmonary rehabilitation method of continuous training at moderate intensity in people with fibrotic interstitial lung disease.MethodsEligible participants will be randomised to either a standard pulmonary rehabilitation group using moderate intensity continuous exercise training or high intensity interval exercise training. Participants in both groups will undertake an 8-week pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training including aerobic (cycling) and strengthening exercises. In addition, participants in both groups will be prescribed a home exercise program. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, upon completion of the intervention and at six months following the intervention by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome is endurance time on a constant work rate test. Secondary outcomes are functional capacity (6-min walk distance), health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis specific version (SGRQ-I), breathlessness (Dyspnoea 12, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale), fatigue (fatigue severity scale), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), physical activity level (GeneActiv), skeletal muscle changes (ultrasonography) and completion and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation.DiscussionThe standard exercise training strategies used in pulmonary rehabilitation may not provide an optimal exercise training stimulus for people with interstitial lung disease. This study will determine whether high intensity interval training can produce equivalent or even superior changes in exercise performance and symptoms. If high intensity interval training proves effective, it will provide an exercise training strategy that can readily be implemented into clinical practice for people with interstitial lung disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03800914). Registered 11 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800914 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000019101. Registered 9 January 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376050&isReview=true.

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.

Project description:AimDue to insufficient evidence on the safety and effectiveness of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in patients early after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), we aimed to compare short- and long-term effects of randomized HIIT or moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on markers of left ventricular (LV) remodeling in STEMI patients receiving optimal guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT).Materials and methodsPatients after STEMI (<4 weeks) enrolled in a 12-week cardiac rehabilitation (CR) program were recruited for this randomized controlled trial (NCT02627586). During a 3-week run-in period with three weekly MICT sessions, GDMT was up-titrated. Then, the patients were randomized to HIIT or isocaloric MICT for 9 weeks. Echocardiography and cardiopulmonary exercise tests were performed after run-in (3 weeks), end of CR (12 weeks), and at 1-year follow-up. The primary outcome was LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi) at the end of CR. Secondary outcomes were LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) and cardiopulmonary fitness.ResultsSeventy-three male patients were included, with the time between STEMI and start of CR and randomization being 12.5 ± 6.3 and 45.8 ± 10.8 days, respectively. Mixed models revealed no significant group × time interaction for LVEDVi at the end of CR (p = 0.557). However, there was a significantly smaller improvement in GLS at 1-year follow-up in the HIIT compared to the MICT group (p = 0.031 for group × time interaction). Cardiorespiratory fitness improved significantly from a median value of 26.5 (1st quartile 24.4; 3rd quartile 1.1) ml/kg/min at randomization in the HIIT and 27.7 (23.9; 31.6) ml/kg/min in the MICT group to 29.6 (25.3; 32.2) and 29.9 (26.1; 34.9) ml/kg/min at the end of CR and to 29.0 (26.6; 33.3) and 30.6 (26.0; 33.8) ml/kg/min at 1 year follow-up in HIIT and MICT patients, respectively, with no significant group × time interactions (p = 0.138 and 0.317).ConclusionIn optimally treated patients early after STEMI, HIIT was not different from isocaloric MICT with regard to short-term effects on LVEDVi and cardiorespiratory fitness. The worsening in GLS at 1 year in the HIIT group deserves further investigation, as early HIIT may offset the beneficial effects of GDMT on LV remodeling in the long term.