June 5, 2007Circulation
Superior Cardiovascular Effect of Aerobic Interval Training Versus Moderate Continuous Training in Heart Failure Patients
Why the study?
Does aerobic interval training improve aerobic capacity and cardiovascular function compared to moderate continuous training or standard advice in patients with stable postinfarction heart failure?
Population
27 patients with stable postinfarction heart failure undergoing optimal medical treatment, mean age…
Comparison
Aerobic interval training 3 times per week for… vs Moderate continuous training 3 times per week…
Design
RCT, Randomized to 3 groups
Follow-up
12 weeks
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Supports aerobic interval training over moderate continuous training in postinfarction HF; extends RCT evidence for exercise-based rehabilitation.
Structured PICO
Does aerobic interval training improve aerobic capacity and cardiovascular function compared to moderate continuous training or standard advice in patients with stable postinfarction heart failure?
P
Population
27 patients with stable postinfarction heart failure undergoing optimal medical treatment (including beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors), mean age 75.5+/-11.1 years, LVEF 29%, VO2peak 13 mL x kg(-1) x min(-1).
I
Intervention
Aerobic interval training (95% of peak heart rate) 3 times per week for 12 weeks.
C
Comparator
Moderate continuous training (70% of peak heart rate) 3 times per week for 12 weeks, or a control group receiving standard advice regarding physical activity.
O
Outcome
VO2peak and variables associated with cardiovascular function and prognosis (LV remodeling, endothelial function, mitochondrial function, quality of life).surrogate
Aerobic interval training is superior to moderate continuous training for improving aerobic capacity, reversing LV remodeling, and enhancing endothelial function in patients with postinfarction heart failure.
Cite This Study
Wisløff et al. (2007) studied this question.