Five different strength training modalities provided comparable significant improvements in functional and cardiorespiratory performance, including a 16% increase in VO2 (P<0.0001), with no significant intergroup differences.
RCT (n=100)
randomized
Do different strength training modalities, including blood flow restriction and eccentric protocols, provide comparable functional and cardiorespiratory improvements in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation?
Different strength training modalities, including blood flow restriction, provide comparable functional and cardiorespiratory benefits in cardiac rehabilitation, allowing for flexible and potentially time-saving exercise prescription.
p-value: p=<0.0001
Abstract Exercise retraining represents a cornerstone of cardiac rehabilitation. While endurance training programs have evolved with the development of high-intensity interval training (HIIT), resistance training recommendations remain less specific and largely limited to traditional methods. Alternative strength training modalities such as blood flow restriction (BFR) or eccentric protocols could provide similar or greater benefits within standard rehabilitation programs. This study aimed to compare the effects of five strength training modalities on functional and cardiorespiratory outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. One hundred patients initiating a rehabilitation program were randomized into five groups according to training modality: (1) 3×10 repetitions at 75% of concentric 1-RM; (2) 3×17 at 45% of concentric 1-RM; (3) 3×10 at 45% of concentric 1-RM; (4) BFR training using the 3/7 technique at 75% of concentric 1-RM; and (5) 3×10 at 75% of unilateral eccentric 1-RM. All patients followed the same endurance component combining HIIT and continuous training. Assessments were conducted after the 4th and 25th sessions (three sessions per week) and included cardiopulmonary exercise testing (VO2, workload, VT1), six-minute walk test (6MWT), 30-second sit-to-stand (30s STS), strength measurements, and body composition analysis. Preliminary data from 60 patients (completion expected for EuroPrevent 2026) demonstrated significant improvements across all parameters (VO2 +16%, p0.0001; 30s STS, p0.0001; 6MWT, p0.05–0.0001; strength tests, p0.0001). No significant intergroup differences were observed, though trends were noted. In conclusion, all strength training modalities provided comparable improvements in functional and cardiorespiratory performance. The BFR 3/7 protocol offers a time-saving advantage with equivalent outcomes, suggesting that flexibility in resistance training prescription is possible without compromising the efficacy of cardiac rehabilitation.
Lamotte et al. (Mon,) conducted a rct in Cardiac rehabilitation (n=100). Different strength training modalities (including BFR and eccentric protocols) vs. Active comparators (five groups compared to each other) was evaluated on Functional and cardiorespiratory outcomes (VO2, workload, VT1, 6MWT, 30s STS, strength measurements) (p=<0.0001). Five different strength training modalities provided comparable significant improvements in functional and cardiorespiratory performance, including a 16% increase in VO2 (P<0.0001), with no significant intergroup differences.