Aerobic interval training and aerobic continuous training similarly preserved physical fitness and physical activity levels at 1-year follow-up (p-interaction > 0.05).
RCT (n=200)
Yes
Does aerobic interval training compared to aerobic continuous training improve long-term physical fitness and physical activity in patients with coronary artery disease?
Short-term center-based aerobic interval training and continuous training yield comparable and sustained 1-year improvements in physical fitness and activity in patients with coronary artery disease.
p-value: p=>0.05
BACKGROUND: Aerobic interval training (AIT) and aerobic continuous training (ACT) both improve physical fitness (peak VO2) in coronary artery disease patients. However, little is known about the long-term effects of AIT and ACT on peak VO2 and exercise adherence. DESIGN: This study is a randomized clinical multicenter trial. METHODS: In total, 163 patients were assessed after 12 weeks of AIT or ACT and 12 months after their enrollment. Physical fitness and physical activity measures served as the primary outcomes, and peripheral endothelial function, cardiovascular risk factors and quality of life (QoL) served as the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients dropped out during the intervention; 11 were lost during the follow-up period. Dropouts (n = 37) consisted of more women (p = 0.001) compared to completers (n = 163). Physical fitness (VO2, heart rate and workload at peak and at thresholds) and physical activity (steps, active energy expenditure kcal, physical activity duration minutes) were preserved at the 1-year follow-up (p-time > 0.05) after both AIT and ACT (p-interaction > 0.05). Forty percent of patients showed increased peak VO2, 52% showed increased active energy expenditure and 91.2% met the recommended levels of 150 minutes/week of moderate physical activity (p-group > 0.05). Further, peripheral endothelial function, QoL and cardiovascular risk factors, except systolic blood pressure (p-time 0.05) after both AIT and ACT (p-interaction > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The short-term improvements of center-based AIT and ACT on physical fitness, physical activity, peripheral endothelial function, cardiovascular risk factors and QoL are sustained after a 1-year follow-up period. The majority of patients (>90%) met the recommended physical activity levels of 150 minutes/week.
Pattyn et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in Coronary artery disease (n=200). Aerobic interval training (AIT) vs. Aerobic continuous training (ACT) was evaluated on Physical fitness and physical activity measures (p=>0.05). Aerobic interval training and aerobic continuous training similarly preserved physical fitness and physical activity levels at 1-year follow-up (p-interaction > 0.05).