Key result
Different intensities of cardiac rehabilitation training yielded a mean difference of 1.21 in peak oxygen uptake (95% CI -0.66 to 3.07; P=0.20) between experimental and control groups.
Why the study?
Cardiac rehabilitation training includes moderate-intensity continuous training and high-intensity interval training, which have different effects in improving prognosis.
Does high-intensity interval training compared to moderate-intensity continuous training improve peak oxygen uptake and left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary heart disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=465)
Does high-intensity interval training compared to moderate-intensity continuous training improve peak oxygen uptake and left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary heart disease?
A meta-analysis of 8 RCTs found no statistically significant difference between different intensities of cardiac rehabilitation training on peak oxygen uptake or left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with coronary heart disease.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No significant peak oxygen uptake gain from intensified cardiac rehabilitation; leaves optimal dosing protocols open for targeted trials.
BACKGROUND: In recent years, the incidence of heart disease has increased and patients are younger. Cardiac rehabilitation training has been proposed to improve the prognosis of patients with heart disease. Cardiac rehabilitation includes moderate-intensity continuous training (MCT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT). These two training methods have different effects in improving the prognosis of patients. The aim of the present study was to improve reference for patients with cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: English databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, were searched from the establishment of the database to April 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation training at different intensities. RevMan 5.3 was used for the meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8 articles (with a total of 465 patients) were included, including 236 patients in the experimental group and 229 patients in the control group. Different intensities of training had statistically significant differences in peak oxygen uptake [mean difference (MD): 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.66 to 3.07, P=0.20] and the left ventricular ejection fraction difference (MD: 2.53, 95% CI: -2.10 to 7.17, P=0.28). DISCUSSION: Cardiac rehabilitation training can effectively improve the patient's cardiac function indicators and self-care ability, and reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, large-sample, multicenter, and long-term RCTs are needed to strengthen the findings of the study.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in coronary heart disease (n=465). Cardiac rehabilitation training (different intensities) vs. Control group was evaluated on peak oxygen uptake (MD 1.21, 95% CI -0.66 to 3.07, p=0.20). Different intensities of cardiac rehabilitation training yielded a mean difference of 1.21 in peak oxygen uptake (95% CI -0.66 to 3.07; P=0.20) between experimental and control groups.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: