Key result
Both non-linear and linear periodization aerobic training programs similarly improved 3-dimensional left ventricular ejection fraction and radial strain in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
The comparative impacts of linear versus nonlinear aerobic training periodizations on left ventricular function and geometry in coronary artery disease patients were unknown.
Does nonlinear aerobic training periodization improve left ventricular function compared to linear periodization in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=39)
Single-blind (researchers and study personnel blinded)
Randomly generated incremental number in a chronological order
No
Does nonlinear aerobic training periodization improve left ventricular function compared to linear periodization in patients with stable coronary artery disease?
Effect estimate: Effect Size (Hedge's g) 0.77 for NLP vs 0.29 for LP
p-value: p=0.18 for interaction
Both linear and nonlinear aerobic training periodization programs similarly improve 3D LVEF and radial strain in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Neither periodization shows LV superiority in CAD; leaves open optimal aerobic training structure for remodeling.
We compared the impacts of linear (LP) and nonlinear (NLP) aerobic training periodizations on left ventricular (LV) function and geometry in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. Thirty-nine CAD patients were randomized to either a 3-month isoenergetic supervised LP or NLP. All underwent standard echocardiography with assessment of 3D LV ejection fraction (LVEF), diastolic function, strain (global longitudinal, radial, and circumferential), and strain rate at baseline and study end. Training was performed 3 times/week and included high-intensity interval and moderate-intensity continuous training sessions. Training load was progressively increased in the LP group, while it was deeply increased and intercepted with a recovery week each fourth week in the NLP group. For the 34 analyzed patients, we found similar improvements for 3D LVEF (effect size (ES): LP, 0.29; NLP, 0.77), radial strain (ES: LP, 0.58; NLP, 0.48), and radial strain rate (ES: LP, 0.87; NLP, 0.17) in both groups (time for all: p ≤ 0.01). All other parameters of cardiac function remained similar. In conclusion, NLP and LP led to similar improvements in 3D LVEF and radial strain, suggesting a favourable positive cardiac remodelling through myofibers reorganization. These findings must be investigated in patients with more severe cardiac dysfunction. The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03443193). Novelty: Linear and nonlinear periodization programs improved radial strain, accompanied by improvement of ejection fraction. Both aerobic periodization programs did not negatively impact cardiac function in coronary artery disease patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boidin et al. (2020) conducted an RCT in Stable coronary artery disease (n=39). Non-linear periodization (NLP) aerobic training vs. Linear periodization (LP) aerobic training was evaluated on 3D Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction (LVEF) (Effect Size (Hedge's g) 0.77 for NLP vs 0.29 for LP, p=0.18 for interaction). Both non-linear and linear periodization aerobic training programs similarly improved 3-dimensional left ventricular ejection fraction and radial strain in patients with stable coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: