Why the study?
The study aimed to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training versus isovolumic high-intensity interval training on left ventricular myocardial function early post-acute myocardial infarction.
Does isovolumic high-intensity interval training improve left ventricular myocardial function compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in patients early after acute myocardial infarction?
Does isovolumic high-intensity interval training improve left ventricular myocardial function compared to moderate-intensity continuous training in patients early after acute myocardial infarction?
Early supervised exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation, using either moderate-intensity continuous training or isovolumic high-intensity interval training, similarly improves longitudinal myocardial function after acute myocardial infarction.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Either MICT or HIIT may be used early post-MI; confirms comparable GLS benefits in supervised rehabilitation.
AIMS: This study aims to compare the effect of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) vs. isovolumic high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on left ventricular (LV) myocardial function early post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Training-induced changes were analysed at both global and segmental levels using advanced deformation echocardiographic imaging techniques. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred AMI patients were randomly assigned to participate in an 8-week training programme comprising either MICT (n = 50) or isovolumic HIIT (n = 50), starting within 6 weeks post-AMI. Before and after cardiac rehabilitation (CR), we carried out a comprehensive and detailed evaluation of myocardial function, including measurements of LV longitudinal strain (LS) and circumferential strain and torsional mechanics, LV myocardial work (MW) and mechanical dispersion [post-systolic shortenings (PSS)] indexes, and atrial strains. Mixed models were used to evaluate the effect of MICT and HIIT on speckle-tracking echocardiography parameter. Both MICT and HIIT resulted in a similar improvement in the amplitude and timing of LV LS (time effect P < 0.001 in each case), as depicted by the comparable increase in global LS [HIIT: -0.82%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.19/-61; MICT: -1.11%, 95% CI: -1.17/-0.51; time ∗ group P = 0.71], MW index and efficiency, constructive MW, and reduction in the number of PSS and wasted MW (time ∗ group P > 0.12 in each case) in the two groups. These improvements were observed in all myocardial territories, regardless of previous ischaemic risk status (culprit vessel-by-time-by-group interactions, P > 0.60 in each case). Circumferential strains remained unchanged in both groups while there was a trend (time ∗ group P = 0.04) for LV torsion to decrease for MICT (P = 0.06) and increase for HIIT (P = 0.36) after CR. Left atrial strains during the reservoir and conduit phases improved (time effect P < 0.05) similarly in MICT vs. HIIT (time ∗ group P > 0.54). V̇O2peak (P < 0.001) and quality of life (P < 0.001) improved equally in MICT and HIIT after CR. CONCLUSION: Early supervised exercise-based CR, whether using MICT or isovolumic HIIT, improves longitudinal myocardial function in both culprit and non-culprit territories after AMI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obert et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: