Key result
This is a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of high-load versus low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training in 60 patients with CAD.
Why the study?
It remains to be investigated whether high-load or low-load resistance training is more efficacious in improving exercise performance, cardio-metabolic health, and quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease.
Does high-load or low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training improve maximal aerobic capacity and leg isometric strength compared to aerobic training alone in patients with coronary artery disease?
Population
60 patients with CAD
Comparison
HL-RT plus AT vs LL-RT plus AT vs AT alone
Design
Randomised controlled clinical trial
Follow-up
After 36 training sessions
Authors
Loading...
This study protocol outlines a randomized trial to determine whether high-load or low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training is more efficacious than aerobic training alone in patients with coronary artery disease.
RCT (n=60)
randomised
Does high-load or low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training improve maximal aerobic capacity and leg isometric strength compared to aerobic training alone in patients with coronary artery disease?
This study protocol outlines a randomized trial to determine whether high-load or low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training is more efficacious than aerobic training alone in patients with coronary artery disease.
Kambič et al. (2021) conducted an RCT in coronary artery disease (n=60). High-load resistance training (HL-RT) or low-load resistance training (LL-RT) combined with aerobic training (AT) vs. Aerobic training (AT) alone was evaluated on maximal aerobic capacity, maximal leg isometric strength. This is a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of high-load versus low-load resistance training combined with aerobic training in 60 patients with CAD.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: