Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Sports Medicine
Published in: Sports Medicine 5/2014

01-05-2014 | Systematic Review

Aerobic Interval Training vs. Moderate Continuous Training in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Authors: Nele Pattyn, Ellen Coeckelberghs, Roselien Buys, Véronique A. Cornelissen, Luc Vanhees

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 5/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Exercise training improves exercise capacity (peakVO2), which is closely related to long-term survival in cardiac patients. However, it remains unclear which type and intensity of exercise is most effective for improving exercise tolerance and body weight. Individual studies suggest that aerobic interval training (AIT) might increase peakVO2 more in this population.

Objective

We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the effects of AIT compared with moderate continuous training (MCT) on peakVO2, submaximal exercise capacity, and body weight in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with preserved and/or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Data sources and study selection

A systematic search was conducted and we included randomized trials comparing AIT and MCT in CAD patients lasting at least 4 weeks, reporting peakVO2 results, and published in a peer-reviewed journal up to May 2013. The primary outcome measure was peakVO2. Secondary outcomes were submaximal exercise capacity parameters and body weight.

Synthesis methods

Random- and fixed-effects models were used and data were reported as weighted means and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Nine study groups were included, involving 206 patients (100 AIT, 106 MCT). Overall, AIT resulted in a significantly larger increase in peakVO2 [+1.60 mL/kg/min (95 % CI 0.18–3.02; p = 0.03)] compared with MCT. MCT seemed to be more effective in reducing body weight (−0.78 kg; 95 % CI −0.01 to 1.58; p = 0.05).

Limitations

The small number of studies might have affected the power to reach significance for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusion

In CAD patients with preserved and/or reduced LVEF, AIT is superior to MCT for improving peakVO2, while MCT seems to be more effective in reducing body weight. However, large, well-designed, randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
Literature
1.
2.
Taylor RS, Brown A, Ebrahim S, et al. Exercise-based rehabilitation for patients with coronary heart disease: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med. 2004;116(10):682–92.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Vanhees L, Fagard R, Thijs L, et al. Prognostic significance of peak exercise capacity in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1994;23(2):358–63.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Myers J, Prakash M, Froelicher V, et al. Exercise capacity and mortality among men referred for exercise testing. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(11):793–801.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Shephard CW, While AE. Cardiac rehabilitation and quality of life: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(6):755–71.CrossRef
6.
Oldridge N. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with coronary heart disease: meta-analysis outcomes revisited. Future Cardiol. 2012;8(5):729–51.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Cornelissen VA, Fagard RH. Effects of endurance training on blood pressure, blood pressure-regulating mechanisms, and cardiovascular risk factors. Hypertension. 2005;46(4):667–75.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Vanhees L, Rauch B, Piepoli M, on behalf of the writing group of the EACPR, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular disease (part III). Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(6):1333–56.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Vanhees L, Stevens A, Schepers D, et al. Determinants of the effects of physical training and of the complications requiring resuscitation during exercise in patients with cardiovascular disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2004;11(4):304–12.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Rankin AJ, Rankin AC, MacIntyre P, et al. Walk or run? Is high-intensity exercise more effective than moderate-intensity exercise at reducing cardiovascular risk? Scott Med J. 2012;57(2):99–102.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Arena R, Myers J, Forman DE, et al. Should high-intensity-aerobic interval training become the clinical standard in heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2013;18(1):95–105.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Cornish AK, Broadbent S, Cheema BS. Interval training for patients with coronary artery disease: a systematic review. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011;111(4):579–89.CrossRefPubMed
13.
O’Donovan G, Owen A, Bird SR, et al. Changes in cardiorespiratory fitness and coronary heart disease risk factors following 24 wk of moderate- or high-intensity exercise of equal energy cost. J Appl Physiol. 2005;98(5):1619–25.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Guiraud T, Nigam A, Gremeaux V, et al. High-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation. Sports Med. 2012;42(7):587–605.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Wisløff U, Støylen A, Loennechen JP, et al. Superior cardiovascular effect of aerobic interval training versus moderate continuous training in heart failure patients: a randomized study. Circulation. 2007;115(24):3086–94.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Smart NA, Dieberg G, Giallauria F. Intermittent versus continuous exercise training in chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166(2):352–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Haykowsky MJ, Timmons MP, Kruger C, et al. Meta-analysis of aerobic interval training on exercise capacity and systolic function in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fractions. Am J Cardiol. 2013;111(10):1466–9.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Rognmo Ø, Hetland E, Helgerud J, et al. High intensity aerobic interval exercise is superior to moderate intensity exercise for increasing aerobic capacity in patients with coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2004;11(3):216–22.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Warburton DE, McKenzie DC, Haykowsky MJ, et al. Effectiveness of high-intensity interval training for the rehabilitation of patients with coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2005;95(9):1080–4.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Rocco EA, Prado DM, Silva AG, et al. Effect of continuous and interval exercise training on the PETCO2 response during a graded exercise test in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinics. 2012;67(6):623–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
21.
Moholdt TT, Amundsen BH, Rustad LA, et al. Aerobic interval training versus continuous moderate exercise after coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized study of cardiovascular effects and quality of life. Am Heart J. 2009;158(6):1031–7.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Dimopoulos S, Anastatiou-Nana M, Sakellariou D, et al. Effects of exercise rehabilitation program on heart rate recovery in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2006;13(1):67–73.PubMed
23.
Vanhees L, Geladas N, Hansen D, on behalf of the writing group of the EACPR, et al. Importance of characteristics and modalities of physical activity and exercise in the management of cardiovascular health in individuals with cardiovascular risk factors: recommendations from the EACPR (part II). Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2012;19(5):1005–33.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
De Morton NA. The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother. 2009;55(2):129–33.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Maher CG, Sherrington C, Herbert RD, et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Phys Ther. 2003;83(8):713–21.PubMed
27.
Follman D, Elliott P, Suh I, et al. Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response. Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(7):769–73.CrossRef
28.
Moholdt T, Aamot IL, Granøien I, et al. Aerobic interval training increases peak oxygen uptake more than usual care exercise training in myocardial infarction patients: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil. 2012;26(1):33–44.CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Hunter JE, Schmidt FL. Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: implications for cumulative research knowledge. Int J Sel Assess. 2000;8(4):275–92.CrossRef
31.
Roditis P, Dimopoulos S, Sakellariou D, et al. The effects of exercise training on the kinetics of oxygen uptake in patients with chronic heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2007;14(2):304–11.PubMed
32.
Amundsen BH, Rognmo Ø, Hatlen-Rebhan G, et al. High-intensity aerobic exercise improves diastolic function in coronary artery disease. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2008;42(2):110–7.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Fu TC, Wang CH, Lin PS, et al. Aerobic interval training improves oxygen uptake efficiency by enhancing cerebral and muscular hemodynamics in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(1):41–50.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Iellamo F, Manzi V, Caminiti G, et al. Dose–response relationship of baroreflex sensitivity and heart rate variability to individually-tailored exercise training in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;166(2):334–9.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Freyssin C, Verkindt C, Prieur F, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation in chronic heart failure: effect of an 8-week, high intensity interval training versus continuous training. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93(8):1359–64.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Iellamo F, Manzi V, Caminiti G, et al. Matched dose interval and continuous exercise training induce similar cardiorespiratory and metabolic adaptations in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2013;167(6):2561–5.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Moholdt T, Aamot IL, Granøien I, et al. Long-term follow-up after cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized study of usual care exercise training versus aerobic interval training after myocardial infarction. Int J Cardiol. 2011;152(3):388–90.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Smart NA, Steele M. A comparison of 16 weeks of continuous vs intermittent exercise training in chronic heart failure patients. Congest Heart Fail. 2012;18(4):205–11.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Currie KD, Dubberley JB, McKelvie RS, et al. Low-volume, high-intensity interval training in patients with coronary artery disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45(8):1436–42.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Fletcher GF, Balady GJ, Amsterdam EA, et al. Exercise standards for testing and training: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2001;104(14):1694–740.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Mezzani A, Agostoni P, Cohen-Solal A, et al. Standards for the use of cardiopulmonary exercise testing for the functional evaluation of cardiac patients: a report from the Exercise Physiology Section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2009;16(3):249–67.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Keteyian SJ, Brawner CA, Savage PD, et al. Peak aerobic capacity predicts prognosis in patients with coronary heart disease. Am Heart J. 2008;156(2):292–300.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Hwang CL, Wu YT, Chou CH. Effect of aerobic interval training on exercise capacity and metabolic risk factors in people with cardiometabolic disorders: a meta-analysis. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2011;31(6):378–85.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Tomczak CR, Thompson RB, Paterson I, et al. Effect of acute high-intensity interval exercise on postexercise biventricular function in mild heart failure. J Appl Physiol. 2011;110(2):398–406.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Nechwatal RM, Duck C, Gruber G. Physical training as interval or continuous training in chronic heart failure for improving functional capacity, hemodynamics and quality of life: a controlled study. Z Kardiol. 2002;91(4):328–37.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Tjønna AE, Lee SJ, Rognmo Ø, et al. Aerobic interval training versus continuous moderate exercise as a treatment for the metabolic syndrome: a pilot study. Circulation. 2008;118(4):346–54.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
47.
Guazzi M, Vitelli A, Arena R. The effect of exercise training on plasma NT-pro-BNP levels and its correlation with improved exercise ventilator efficiency in patients with heart failure. Int J Cardiol. 2012;158(2):290–1.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Van de Veire NR, Van Laethem C, Philippé J, et al. VE/VCO2 slope and oxygen uptake efficiency slope in patients with coronary artery disease and intermediate peakVO2. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2006;13(6):916–23.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Sarullo FM, Fazio G, Brusca I, et al. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with chronic heart failure: prognostic comparison from peak VO2 and VE/VCO2 slope. Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2010;26(4):127–34.CrossRef
50.
Cahalin LP, Chase P, Arena R, et al. A meta-analysis of the prognostic significance of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in patients with heart failure. Heart Fail Rev. 2013;18(1):79–94.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Guazzi M, Adams V, Conraads V, et al. EACPR/AHA Scientific Statement: clinical recommendations for cardiopulmonary exercise testing data assessment in specific patient populations. Eur Heart J. 2012;33(12):2917–27.PubMed
52.
Hansen D, Dendale P, van Loon LJ, Meeusen R. The impact of training modalities on the clinical benefits of exercise intervention in patients with cardiovascular disease or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Sports Med. 2010;40(11):921–40.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Thompson PD, Franklin BA, Balady GJ, et al. Exercise and acute cardiovascular events placing the risks into perspective: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism and the Council on Clinical Cardiology. Circulation. 2007;115(17):2358–68.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Rognmo Ø, Moholdt T, Bakken H, et al. Cardiovascular risk of high- versus moderate intensity aerobic exercise in coronary heart disease patients. Circulation. 2012;126(12):1436–40.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Fagard RH, Staessen JA, Thijs L. Advantages and disadvantages of the meta-analysis approach. J Hypertens Suppl. 1996;14(2):S9–12.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Aerobic Interval Training vs. Moderate Continuous Training in Coronary Artery Disease Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Authors
Nele Pattyn
Ellen Coeckelberghs
Roselien Buys
Véronique A. Cornelissen
Luc Vanhees
Publication date
01-05-2014
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Sports Medicine / Issue 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-014-0158-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2014

Sports Medicine 5/2014 Go to the issue

Review Article

A Critical Review of the History of Low- to Moderate-Intensity Steady-State VO2 Kinetics

Review Article

Cardiac Acceleration at the Onset of Exercise: A Potential Parameter for Monitoring Progress During Physical Training in Sports and Rehabilitation

Review Article

Autophagic Cellular Responses to Physical Exercise in Skeletal Muscle

Systematic Review

Measuring and Influencing Physical Activity with Smartphone Technology: A Systematic Review

Systematic Review

Effects of Protein Supplements on Muscle Damage, Soreness and Recovery of Muscle Function and Physical Performance: A Systematic Review

Systematic Review

Evaluation of Research Using Computerised Tracking Systems (Amisco® and Prozone®) to Analyse Physical Performance in Elite Soccer: A Systematic Review