Key result
Combined aerobic-resistance training linked to ~16% greater VO2peak improvement vs aerobic training alone in CHD.
Why the study?
The comparative effects of combined aerobic-resistance training versus aerobic training with similar training load on cardiorespiratory responses in coronary heart disease patients were unclear.
Does combined aerobic-resistance training improve peak oxygen uptake more than aerobic training alone in patients with coronary heart disease?
Does combined aerobic-resistance training improve peak oxygen uptake more than aerobic training alone in patients with coronary heart disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 36.4% vs 20.1%
p-value: p=0.014
A 4-week combined aerobic and resistance training program yields greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake and anaerobic threshold compared to aerobic training alone in patients with coronary heart disease.
May support adding resistance training to cardiac rehab in CHD; extends Level 3 data but requires RCT confirmation.
To compare the effects of 2 short programs with similar training load (TL), based on combined aerobic – resistance training (CT) or aerobic training (AT) on cardiorespiratory responses, 32 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD: 63.8±8.0y, 1.73±0.06 m, 84.8±15.9 kg, Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: 0.53±0.8) performed 4 weeks of exercise rehabilitation based on CT (n=16) or AT (n=16). Maximal tolerated power (MTP), peak values of oxygen uptake (VO 2peak ) and heart rate (HR peak ), anaerobic threshold (VT1) were determined during an incremental cycling exercise test before and after training periods. TL, quantified using the session rating of perceived exertion, did not differ between both modalities (CT: 4 438±572 vs. AT: 4 346±592 AU, p=0.300). Improvements in VO 2peak were larger after CT (+36.4±24.7% of pre-training VO 2peak , i. e., +4.4±2.3 mL.min −1 .kg −1 , n=14) than observed after AT (+20.1±9.1% of pre-training VO 2peak , i. e., +2.6±1.0 mL.min −1 .kg −1 , n=12) (p=0.014). Additionally, CT significantly improved power (54.6±23.8 vs. 75.1±21.2 watts, p=0.001) and VO 2 associated at VT1 (VO 2 : 9.8±2.5 vs. 12.6±2.9 mL.min −1 .kg −1 , p=0.001). This might be taken into account when prescribing exercise rehabilitation for CHD patients with different initial clinical limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leprêtre et al. (2016) studied Coronary heart disease (n=32). Combined aerobic-resistance training (CT) vs. Aerobic training (AT) was evaluated on Improvements in VO2peak (p=0.014). Combined aerobic-resistance training yielded larger improvements in VO2peak compared to aerobic training alone (+36.4% vs +20.1%; p=0.014) over 4 weeks in patients with coronary heart disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: