Key result
Interval training improves peak VO2 by ~2.1 mL/kg/min over continuous training in heart failure.
Why the study?
To compare the effects of interval training versus continuous training on cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance in patients with HF to help guide exercise prescriptions.
Does interval training improve cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance compared with continuous training in patients with heart failure?
Meta-Analysis (n=617)
Assessor-blinded in 7 studies
Randomized controlled trials
Does interval training improve cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance compared with continuous training in patients with heart failure?
Interval training is superior to continuous training for improving cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance in heart failure patients, particularly at 60-80% peak heart rate.
Supports prioritizing interval training in heart failure rehabilitation; confirms greater fitness gains versus continuous training across 17 RCTs.
Purpose: To investigate the effects of interval training (IT) as compared with continuous training (CT) on cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance of patients with heart failure (HF), with the aim to provide reasonable exercise prescriptions for patients with HF. Methods: Through searching electronic databases, randomized controlled studies were collected. The included studies were evaluated for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and statistical analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata MP 15.1 software. Results: A total of seventeen randomized controlled trials (i.e., studies) with 617 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that IT can improve a patient’s peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) (MD = 2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.99, p < 0.00001), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD =1.32, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.03, p = 0.0003), and 6-minute walk distance (6MWD) (MD = 25.67, 95% CI 12.87 to 38.47, p < 0.0001) as compared with CT. However, for respiratory exchange ratio (RER) (MD = 0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.03, p = 0.81), CO2 ventilation equivalent slope (VE/VCO2 slope) (SMD = 0.04, 95% CI −0.23 to 0.31, p = 0.75), and resting heart rate (HRrest) (MD = 0.15, 95% CI −3.00 to 3.29, p = 0.93) there were no statistical significance. Conclusions: The evidence shows that IT is better than CT for improving the cardiorespiratory fitness and exercise tolerance of patients with HF. Moreover, an intensity of 60–80% peak heart rate of IT is the optimal choice for patients. It is hoped that, in the future, more well-designed studies would further expand the meta-analysis results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Heart failure (n=617). Interval training vs. Continuous training was evaluated on Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) (MD 2.08, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.99, p=<0.00001). Interval training significantly improved peak oxygen uptake by a mean difference of 2.08 mL/kg/min compared to continuous training in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: