Key result
New trial protocol compares HIIT versus remote ischemic preconditioning for exercise capacity in CAD.
Why the study?
Debate persists regarding the safety, efficacy, and adherence of HIIT, while RIPC has emerged as a novel time-efficient intervention, necessitating investigation into the most effective secondary intervention for CAD.
RCT (n=48)
Double-blind
Fishbowl technique
Yes
Health professionals have introduced high intensity interval training (HIIT) and acknowledge it as an effective intervention for improving cardiovascular responses in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there is ongoing debate about HIIT due to potential safety issues that could impact its efficacy and adherence to the intervention. Currently, health practitioners are also highlighting a novel intervention known as remote ischemic precondition (RIPC), which is a simple technique that requires minimal time commitment. Urgent investigation is required to address these issues regarding the most effective secondary intervention. Therefore, we aim to compare the efficacy, safety, and adherence of HIIT and RIPC for the management of CAD patients. This is a randomized control trial (RCT) for CAD patients, above 18 years of age, who completed a phase two cardiac rehabilitation program following a hospital admission for cardiac-related events or procedures related to CAD. We will randomly assign participants to one of three groups. 1. HIIT. 4 x 4 minutes at 80–95% HRR interspersed with 3 minutes active recovery. 2. RIPC. 4 x 5 minutes inflate at 220 mmHg interspersed with 5 minutes deflate. 3. Standard care. Primary outcomes are change in exercise capacity (peak VO2), hs-CRP, lipid profiles, body composition, and LV functions. Secondary outcome measures are safety and adherence, following the intervention three times a week for 12 weeks. We anticipate study findings will help physiotherapists and medical trainers in designing the most effective secondary intervention for greater benefits to CAD patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ilias et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=48). High intensity interval training (HIIT) and Remote ischemic precondition (RIPC) vs. Standard care was evaluated on Change in exercise capacity (peak VO2), hs-CRP, lipid profiles, body composition, and LV functions. This study protocol describes a planned randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy, safety, and adherence of high intensity interval training versus remote ischemic preconditioning in 48 patients with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: