Key result
HIIT improves heart rate recovery vs moderate-intensity continuous training without affecting HRV or ventricular arrhythmias.
Why the study?
The comparative effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on risk markers of arrhythmic death after acute coronary syndrome were unknown.
Does high-intensity interval training improve risk markers of arrhythmic death compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in patients following an acute coronary syndrome?
RCT (n=43)
Double-blind
randomized
No
Does high-intensity interval training improve risk markers of arrhythmic death compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in patients following an acute coronary syndrome?
p-value: p=<0.05
High-intensity interval training may be more effective than moderate-intensity continuous training at improving heart rate recovery in patients following acute coronary syndrome, though it did not significantly affect other arrhythmic risk markers.
May favor high-intensity interval training to improve heart rate recovery after acute coronary syndrome; extends randomized exercise comparisons but leaves broader arrhythmic effects open.
Objective: To compare the effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on risk markers of arrhythmic death in patients who recently suffered from an acute coronary syndrome. Design: Double-blind (patient and evaluator) randomized controlled trial. Setting: Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (EPIC Centre) of the Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada. Subjects: A total of 43 patients were randomized following an acute coronary syndrome. Interventions: Patients were assigned to either high-intensity interval training (n = 18) or isocaloric moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 19), three times a week for a total of 36 sessions. Main measures: Heart rate recovery for 5 minutes, heart rate variability for 24 hours, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, and QT dispersion were measured before and after the 36 sessions of training. Results: Among the 43 patients randomized, 6 participants in the high-intensity interval training group stopped training for reasons unrelated to exercise training and were excluded from the analyses. Heart rate recovery improved solely in the high-intensity interval training group, particularly at the end of recovery period ( p < 0.05). There were no differences in heart rate variability, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, or QT dispersion parameters between the groups at study end. Conclusion: Despite the lack of power to detect any large difference between the two interventions with respect to risk markers of arrhythmic death, high-intensity interval training appears safe and may be more effective at improving heart rate recovery relative to moderate-intensity continuous training in our patients following acute coronary syndrome.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boidin et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in acute coronary syndrome (n=43). high-intensity interval training vs. isocaloric moderate-intensity continuous training was evaluated on Heart rate recovery for 5 minutes, heart rate variability for 24 hours, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, and QT dispersion (p=<0.05). High-intensity interval training improved heart rate recovery compared to moderate-intensity continuous training (p<0.05), with no differences in heart rate variability or ventricular arrhythmias.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: