Key result
Aerobic interval training and continuous training equally improved peak VO2, heart rate, workload, and endothelial function over 12 weeks (P-time <0.001), with no change in muscle strength.
Why the study?
Does aerobic interval training compared to continuous training improve exercise capacity and its determinants in patients with coronary artery disease?
RCT (n=200)
Yes
Does aerobic interval training compared to continuous training improve exercise capacity and its determinants in patients with coronary artery disease?
Aerobic interval training and continuous training are equally effective at improving exercise capacity and endothelial function in patients with coronary artery disease.
May allow flexible aerobic training choices in practice; leaves open optimal protocols in larger trials.
Objective We aimed to investigate (1) the effects of aerobic interval training (AIT) and aerobic continuous training (ACT) on (sub)maximal exercise measures and its determinants including endothelial function, muscle strength and cardiac autonomic function, and (2) the relationship between exercise capacity and these determinants.Methods Two-hundred coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (58.4 ± 9.1 years) were randomized to AIT or ACT for 12 weeks. All patients performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test and endothelial function measurements before and after the intervention; a subpopulation underwent muscle strength and heart rate variability (HRV) assessments.Results The VO2, heart rate and workload at peak and at first and second ventilatory threshold increased (P-time <0.001); the oxygen uptake efficiency slope (P-time <0.001) and half time of peak VO2 (P-time <0.001) improved. Endothelial function and heart rate recovery (HRR) at 1 and 2 min improved (P-time <0.001), while measures of muscle strength and HRV did not change. Both interventions were equally effective. Significant correlations were found between baseline peak VO2 and (1) quadriceps strength (r = 0.44; P < 0.001); (2) HRR at 2 min (r = 0.46; P < 0.001). Changes in peak VO2 correlated significantly with changes in (1) FMD (ρ = 0.17; P < 0.05); (2) quadriceps strength (r = 0.23; P < 0.05); (3) HRR at 2 min (ρ = 0.18; P < 0.05) and Total power of HRV (ρ = 0.41; P < 0.05).Conclusions This multicentre trial shows equal improvements in maximal and submaximal exercise capacity, endothelial function and HRR after AIT and ACT, while these training methods seem to be insufficient to improve muscle strength and HRV. Changes in peak VO2 were linked to changes in all underlying parameters.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pattyn et al. (2017) conducted an RCT in Coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=200). Aerobic interval training (AIT) vs. Aerobic continuous training (ACT) was evaluated on (sub)maximal exercise measures and its determinants including endothelial function, muscle strength and cardiac autonomic function. Aerobic interval training and continuous training equally improved peak VO2, heart rate, workload, and endothelial function over 12 weeks (P-time <0.001), with no change in muscle strength.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: