Key result
Low-intensity longer-duration resistance training shows no difference in HR or SBP versus high-intensity shorter-duration.
Why the study?
Does low-intensity longer-duration resistance training compared to high-intensity shorter-duration resistance training alter the acute hemodynamic response (HR and SBP) in adults with cardiovascular disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=182)
Does low-intensity longer-duration resistance training compared to high-intensity shorter-duration resistance training alter the acute hemodynamic response (HR and SBP) in adults with cardiovascular disease?
Mean Difference: 1.23 (95% CI -2.97–5.43)
p-value: p=.5651
Different modalities of resistance training (low-intensity/longer-duration vs high-intensity/shorter-duration) elicit similar, safe, and predictable acute increases in heart rate and systolic blood pressure in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Purpose: Resistance training (RT) can improve the quality of life and cardiovascular function in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Its clinical application, however, remains limited by heterogeneous training protocols and insufficiently understood acute hemodynamic responses. This systematic review, therefore, aimed to investigate the hemodynamic response during different modalities of RT in patients with CVD. Review Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials Register was conducted. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, comparing the hemodynamic response between different modalities of RT in adults (≥18 years) with CVD, were included. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the change from baseline (Δ) in heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) to low-intensity with longer-duration RT (low longer) versus high-intensity with shorter-duration RT (high shorter). Summary: The 8 included studies, which comprised 182 patients with CVD, especially heart failure and coronary artery disease, reported that RT was safe and observed an increase in HR and SBP during RT relative to baseline, independent of the modality used. The meta-analysis performed for HR (mean difference = 1.23: 95% CI, −2.97 to 5.43 beats/min; P = .5651) and SBP (mean difference = 12.57: 95% CI, −6.83 to 31.98 mm Hg; P = .2040) indicated no statistically significant difference between the low-longer and high-shorter modalities. This systematic review underscores that, despite limited evidence, dynamic RT elicits a predictable and safe increase in HR and SBP in patients with CVD, particularly those with heart failure and coronary artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schmidt et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Cardiovascular disease (n=182). Low-intensity with longer-duration resistance training vs. High-intensity with shorter-duration resistance training was evaluated on Change from baseline in heart rate (HR) (MD 1.23, 95% CI -2.97 to 5.43, p=.5651). Low-intensity longer-duration resistance training showed no significant difference in heart rate (MD 1.23; P=0.5651) or systolic blood pressure (MD 12.57; P=0.2040) vs high-intensity shorter-duration.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: