High-intensity interval training significantly increased peak VO2 compared to standard cardiac rehabilitation (3.47 vs. 0.86 mL/kg/min; p=0.01) without increasing serious adverse events.
Cohort (n=90)
No
Does high-intensity interval training (HIIT) improve cardiometabolic and functional outcomes in phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients?
High-intensity interval training safely optimizes exercise capacity, specifically VO2 peak, in appropriately selected phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients compared to standard rehabilitation.
Absolute Event Rate: 3.47% vs 0.86%
p-value: p=0.01
Abstract Introduction High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has emerged as an effective modality within cardiac rehabilitation. Despite its benefits, concerns remain regarding the safety and feasibility of implementing HIIT in CR settings. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on cardiometabolic and functional outcomes, as well as safety, in patients undergoing phase II cardiac rehabilitation Methods From November 2024, phase II cardiac rehabilitation patients meeting predefined functional and clinical criteria (6MWT 350 m, exercise stress testing 7 METs or peak VO2 ≥ 14 mL/kg/min, complete revascularization and no angina) were assigned to a high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program and compared with a historical control group of patients with similar baseline characteristics who underwent standard CR between 2016 and 2024. Results Of the 90 patients included, 21 were assigned to the HIIT group and 69 to the control group. At baseline, the groups were comparable in age (HIIT: 55.6 ± 8.7 years vs. control: 60.2 ± 11.1 years; p = 0.084), NYHA class (class I: 66.7% vs. 71.0%; class II: 33.3% vs. 29.0%), VO2 peak (20.1 ± 4.7 vs. 18.7 ± 3.6 mL/kg/min; p = 0.29), and 6-minute walk test distance (6MWT: 514.5 ± 64.2 m vs. 479.8 ± 75.5 m; p = 0.093). Following the program, improvements in 6MWT were similar between groups (HIIT: 75.7 ± 66.4 m vs. control: 99.2 ± 75.5 m; p = 0.217). In cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), VO2 peak increased significantly in the HIIT group compared with controls (3.47 ± 3.88 vs. 0.86 ± 2.27 mL/kg/min; p = 0.01), while no other CPET parameters showed statistically significant differences between groups, including % predicted VO2 peak (9.11 ± 5.73 vs. 4.35 ± 8.77; p = 0.13), VO2 at the first (0.11 ± 2.29 vs. 0.18 ± 1.88 mL/kg/min; p = 0.92) and second thresholds (2.10 ± 2.88 vs. 0.98 ± 3.00 mL/kg/min; p = 0.32), VE/VCO2 slope (-0.20 ± 3.49 vs. -1.27 ± 3.34; p = 0.24), PETCO2 at peak (1.56 ± 2.19 vs. 1.20 ± 3.60; p = 0.78), and peak workload (15.7 ± 12.0 vs. 10.4 ± 21.7; p = 0.48). No serious adverse events occurred with HIIT. Reported events included two episodes of symptomatic hypotension and one musculoskeletal chest pain episode. Conclusions In this cohort, HIIT significantly enhanced VO2 peak without increasing adverse events, while improvements in other functional parameters were comparable to standard cardiac rehabilitation. These findings indicate that HIIT can safely optimize exercise capacity in appropriately selected CR patients and pave directions for continuing future implementation and study in this setting.
Vilela et al. (Mon,) conducted a cohort in Phase II cardiac rehabilitation (n=90). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) vs. Standard cardiac rehabilitation (historical control) was evaluated on Increase in VO2 peak (p=0.01). High-intensity interval training significantly increased peak VO2 compared to standard cardiac rehabilitation (3.47 vs. 0.86 mL/kg/min; p=0.01) without increasing serious adverse events.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: