Key result
Continuous combined training reduces 24-hour systolic BP variability by ~0.9 mmHg vs interval training in IHD.
Why the study?
While cardiac rehabilitation improves exercise tolerance and quality of life, its effects on 24-hour blood pressure variability in patients with ischemic heart disease remain poorly defined.
Does continuous combined training reduce 24-hour blood pressure variability compared to interval combined training in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and hypertension?
RCT (n=34)
Does continuous combined training reduce 24-hour blood pressure variability compared to interval combined training in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and hypertension?
p-value: p=< 0.05
Continuous combined training appears superior to interval training in reducing 24-hour systolic blood pressure variability and enhancing myocardial diastolic and mechanical function in hypertensive ischemic patients.
Continuous combined training was associated with lower systolic BP variability in IHD; hypothesis-generating and needs confirmation in larger trials.
Background Arterial hypertension is a key determinant of adverse outcomes in patients with ischemic heart disease. While cardiac rehabilitation improves exercise tolerance and quality of life, its effects on 24-hour blood pressure variability (BPV) remain poorly defined. Methods In this prospective study, 34 patients with stable ischemic heart disease and hypertension were randomized to 12 weeks of continuous combined training (CCT) or interval combined training (ICT). Both programs included aerobic and resistance components. Pre- and post-intervention assessments included 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), echocardiography, and metabolic profiling. Results Twenty-nine patients completed the study. Resting systolic blood pressure decreased significantly in both groups, whereas 24-hour mean blood pressure remained unchanged. Systolic BP variability (ARV) significantly reduced only in the CCT group (Δ = –0,92 mmHg±0,08; p < 0.05). Both protocols improved aerobic capacity (VO2peak: +3.1 vs +1.7 mL/kg/min for ICT and CCT, respectively), with no between-group difference. The ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO2) improved significantly only in the CCT group. Echocardiographic parameters showed that CCT improved diastolic and atrial function (reduction in E/e’, increase in PALS), and enhanced myocardial work efficiency (↑GWE, ↓GWW), while ICT showed no significant cardiac mechanical adaptation. Fasting glucose and LDL cholesterol decreased in both groups, more markedly after CCT. Conclusions Both continuous and interval combined training improve cardiovascular and metabolic profiles in hypertensive ischemic patients. However, continuous training appears superior in reducing 24-hour systolic BP variability and enhancing myocardial diastolic and mechanical function.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Caminiti et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in Stable ischemic heart disease and hypertension (n=34). Continuous combined training (CCT) vs. Interval combined training (ICT) was evaluated on 24-hour systolic blood pressure variability (ARV) (p=< 0.05). Continuous combined training significantly reduced 24-hour systolic blood pressure variability (Δ = -0.92 mmHg; p < 0.05) compared to interval training in patients with ischemic heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: