Key result
Eight weeks of group aerobic exercise training produced a small, temporarily greater physical working capacity compared to light exercise (10.8 vs 9.9 METs), with no difference at 12 months.
Why the study?
Does eight weeks of group aerobic exercise training improve physical working capacity more than group light exercise in men after transmural acute myocardial infarction?
Population
308 men with transmural (Q wave) acute myocardial infarction, admitted to a single coronary care unit
Comparison
Eight weeks of group aerobic exercise training vs Eight weeks of group light exercise
Design
RCT, randomly allocated
Follow-up
12 months
Authors
Loading...
Offers no sustained advantage over light exercise post-MI; challenges assumptions of lasting benefit from brief aerobic programs.
RCT (n=308)
No
Does eight weeks of group aerobic exercise training improve physical working capacity more than group light exercise in men after transmural acute myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: Difference 0.9 METs
Absolute Event Rate: 10.8% vs 9.9%
Aerobic exercise training provides only a small, temporary improvement in physical working capacity compared to light exercise in men recovering from transmural myocardial infarction.
Goble et al. (1991) conducted an RCT in transmural (Q wave) acute myocardial infarction (n=308). Group aerobic exercise training vs. Group light exercise was evaluated on Physical working capacity (metabolic equivalents) at the end of the study (eleventh week after infarction) (Difference 0.9 METs). Eight weeks of group aerobic exercise training produced a small, temporarily greater physical working capacity compared to light exercise (10.8 vs 9.9 METs), with no difference at 12 months.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: