Key result
Outdoor cycling with high electrical support resulted in a lower mean VO2 (1721 ml/min) compared to low support (1890 ml/min), but both intensities met the guidelines for secondary prevention in coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Does electrical assisted cycling elicit sufficient exercise intensity and volume compared to classical cycling in patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=15)
Open-label
Crossover
No
Does electrical assisted cycling elicit sufficient exercise intensity and volume compared to classical cycling in patients with coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 1721% vs 1846%
p-value: p=0.018
Electrical assisted bicycles provide sufficient exercise intensity to meet secondary prevention guidelines in CAD patients while lowering perceived exertion at high support levels.
EABs elicit guideline-recommended intensities and volumes in CAD patients with lower effort; leaves open long-term adherence and outcomes.
Background: Electrical assisted bicycles (EAB’s) could be used to overcome barriers and difficulties to outdoor cycling and thus assist in achieving a sufficient physical activity level in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients, but it is unknown whether sufficient exercise intensities and volumes could be elicited during cycling on EAB’s. In this study we examined, for the first time, the acute physiological impact of electrical support during outdoor cycling in CAD patients (ISRCTN32238279).Methods: Fifteen CAD patients (13 males), aged 64 ± 7 years executed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test and afterwards cycled a predefined outdoor route of 10 km, in three different conditions: classical cycling (no support), EAB with low support (EABlow) and high support (EABhigh). Oxygen uptake (VO2) and carbon dioxide output (VCO2) was measured continuously by a portable gas-analysing system. Cycling time was recorded and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) was assessed at 3 and 7 km.Results: Mean VO2 during EABhigh (1721 ± 537 ml•min−1) was significantly lower compared to EABlow (1890 ± 619 ml•min−1, p < .05), but no differences were found between EABlow and classical cycling (1846 ± 523 ml•min–1). EABlow and EABhigh elicited a sufficient volume and intensity (6.6 ± 2.0 MET’s (74 ± 6% VO2peak) and 6.0 ± 1.8 MET’s (68 ± 7% VO2peak), respectively) to adhere to the guidelines for secondary prevention in CAD. RPE was significantly lower p < .05) during EABhigh (9 ± 2), than during EABlow (11 ± 2) or classical cycling (11 ± 2).Conclusions: Outdoor cycling with electrical support leads to a sufficiently high exercise intensity and volume in CAD patients, and may be considered as an alternative exercise modality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hansen et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (n=15). Electrical assisted bicycle (EAB) vs. Classical cycling (no support) was evaluated on Mean oxygen uptake (VO2) (p=0.018). Outdoor cycling with high electrical support resulted in a lower mean VO2 (1721 ml/min) compared to low support (1890 ml/min), but both intensities met the guidelines for secondary prevention in coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: