Hemodynamic Tolerance of New Resistance Training Methods in Patients With Heart Failure and Coronary Artery Disease

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the effectiveness of three different resistance training (RT) methods for cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: Individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 23) or coronary artery disease (CAD, n = 22) and healthy controls (CTRL, n = 29) participated in this randomized crossover trial of RT exercises at 70% of the one-maximal repetition on a leg extension machine. Peak heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) were measured noninvasively. The three RT methods were five sets of increasing repetitions from three to seven (RISE), of decreasing repetitions from seven to three (DROP), and three sets of nine repetitions (USUAL). Interset rest intervals were 15 sec for RISE and DROP and 60 sec for USUAL. RESULTS: Peak HR differed on average by <4 bpm between methods in the HFrEF and CAD groups ( P < .02). Rises in systolic BP (SBP) in the HFrEF group were comparable across methods. In the CAD group, mean SBP at peak exercise increased more in RISE and DROP than in USUAL ( P < .001), but the increase was ≤10 mm Hg. In the CTRL group, SBP was higher for DROP than for USUAL (152 ± 22 vs 144 ± 24 mm Hg, respectively; P < .01). Peak cardiac output and perceived exertion did not differ between methods. CONCLUSIONS: The RISE, DROP, and USUAL RT methods induced a similar perception of effort and similar increases in peak HR and BP. The RISE and DROP methods appear more efficient as they allow a comparable training volume in a shorter time than the USUAL method.