Key result
Individualized active recovery fails to improve 1-minute heart rate recovery over a fixed-workload protocol.
Why the study?
Abnormalities in parasympathetic modulation may link decreased heart rate recovery after exercise to pathophysiology, but effects of different active recovery protocols on HR recovery are unclear.
Does a fixed active recovery protocol alter heart rate recovery post-exercise compared to an individualized protocol in patients undergoing exercise testing?
RCT (n=852)
Randomized
Does a fixed active recovery protocol alter heart rate recovery post-exercise compared to an individualized protocol in patients undergoing exercise testing?
Absolute Event Rate: 23.57% vs 22%
p-value: p=0.315
Using a fixed versus individualized active recovery protocol does not significantly affect heart rate recovery in the first two minutes post-exercise.
Fixed active recovery yields equivalent heart rate recovery to individualized protocols; supports simpler fixed protocols in exercise testing while confirming robustness of recovery assessment.
Abnormalities in the modulation of parasympathetic activity have been identified as a possible pathophysiological link with the association between decreases in heart rate recovery after exercise test.Hypothesis: To investigate if the application of different protocols of active recovery promotes difference in reducing Heart Rate (HR) in Post-Exercise (PE).This was a prospective, randomized trial of patients undergoing Exercise Testing (ET) and applied to two different protocols of active recovery.They were divided into G1 with recovery of 1.5 mph/2.5% and G2 40% of the speed and slope of the peak in the PE.Variables were evaluated pre-test and intrinsic to the TE.We compared the recovery of FC 1 and 2 min in the PE.Statistical analysis used the chi-square test, Student's t test and considered p<0.05.We analyzed 939 patients and 852 selected for randomization.Were allocated to G1 403 patients with mean age 47.86±14.31years, 53.35% female and G2 with 449 patients with mean age 48.56±14.23 years and 51.7% were female.In the analysis of HR recovery of first (22.00Vs. 23.57; p = 0.315) and second (36.17Vs. 37.70, p = 0.06) minutes, G1 and G2 did not obtain differences.The use of different models of active recovery, applying fixed workload of 1.5 mph/2.5% slope or individually in 40% of the workload of the peak stress does not alter the recovery of HR in first or second minutes in the PE.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carreira (2013) conducted an RCT in Patients undergoing Exercise Testing (n=852). Active recovery at 40% of peak exercise workload vs. Fixed active recovery at 1.5 mph and 2.5% slope was evaluated on Heart rate recovery at 1 minute post-exercise (p=0.315). Active recovery at 40% of peak exercise workload did not significantly alter heart rate recovery in the first minute post-exercise compared to a fixed workload of 1.5 mph and 2.5% slope.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: