Key result
Aerobic interval training improved V̇O2peak by 0.95 mL kg-1 min-1 compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise in women with coronary artery disease (p<0.001).
Why the study?
The study investigated the effects of aerobic interval training versus moderate intensity continuous exercise on peak aerobic capacity and other clinical outcomes exclusively in women with CAD in cardiac rehabilitation.
Does aerobic interval training improve aerobic exercise capacity in postmenopausal women with coronary artery disease compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise?
RCT (n=31)
randomised
Does aerobic interval training improve aerobic exercise capacity in postmenopausal women with coronary artery disease compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise?
In postmenopausal women with coronary artery disease, aerobic interval training may improve aerobic exercise capacity more than moderate intensity continuous exercise, though high attrition rates highlight significant feasibility challenges in this population.
Supports AIT over MICE for VO2peak gains in women with CAD in CR; extends mixed-sex RCT evidence to this understudied group.
Background The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the effects of aerobic interval training (AIT) versus moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE) on aerobic exercise capacity (V̇O2peak), in women only, with coronary artery disease (CAD) and who were referred to a large, 24-week outpatient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. Secondary objectives included comparing the effects of AIT versus MICE on cognition, cardiovascular risk profile, adherence and quality of life before and after the 24-week CR programme. Methods Thirty-one postmenopausal women with CAD (left ventricular ejection fraction >35%; 68.2±9.2 years of age; V̇O2peak: 19.1±3.5 mL kg -1 min -1 ) were randomised to 24 weeks of usual care MICE (60%–80% of V̇O2peak, five times per week) or AIT (four 4-min intervals at 90%–95% of peak heart rate, three times per week+two times per week usual care MICE). Differences between and within groups were assessed using independent samples t-tests and paired samples t-tests, respectively. Treatment effect analysis of AIT on V̇O2peak and secondary outcomes was determined using analysis of covariance with baseline values as covariates. Results A randomised controlled trial study design was unfeasible in this female CAD population. Unanticipated challenges in recruitment availability and eligibility, in combination with a 59% and 50% attrition rate in the AIT and MICE group, respectively, rendered this study underpowered to detect differences between groups. The per protocol treatment effect analysis, however, unveiled a 0.95 mL kg -1 min -1 improvement in V̇O2peak in response to AIT over MICE (p<0.001). Conclusions Further research is necessary to elucidate the patient profile and circumstances under which the potential for the implementation of AIT may be individualised, and offered in clinical practice. Trial registration NCT02966158 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lee et al. (2019) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=31). Aerobic interval training (AIT) vs. moderate intensity continuous exercise (MICE) (60%-80% of V̇O2peak, five times per week) was evaluated on aerobic exercise capacity (V̇O2peak) (MD 0.95, p=<0.001). Aerobic interval training improved V̇O2peak by 0.95 mL kg-1 min-1 compared to moderate intensity continuous exercise in women with coronary artery disease (p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: