Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 May;44(5):687-700.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-014-0158-x.

Aerobic interval training vs. moderate continuous training in coronary artery disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nele Pattyn  1 , Ellen Coeckelberghs, Roselien Buys, Véronique A Cornelissen, Luc Vanhees
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Aerobic interval training vs. moderate continuous training in coronary artery disease patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nele Pattyn et al. Sports Med. 2014 May.

Abstract

Background: Exercise training improves exercise capacity (peakVO2), which is closely related to long-term survival in cardiac patients. However, it remains unclear which type and intensity of exercise is most effective for improving exercise tolerance and body weight. Individual studies suggest that aerobic interval training (AIT) might increase peakVO2 more in this population.

Objective: We conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the effects of AIT compared with moderate continuous training (MCT) on peakVO2, submaximal exercise capacity, and body weight in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with preserved and/or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Data sources and study selection: A systematic search was conducted and we included randomized trials comparing AIT and MCT in CAD patients lasting at least 4 weeks, reporting peakVO2 results, and published in a peer-reviewed journal up to May 2013. The primary outcome measure was peakVO2. Secondary outcomes were submaximal exercise capacity parameters and body weight.

Synthesis methods: Random- and fixed-effects models were used and data were reported as weighted means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Nine study groups were included, involving 206 patients (100 AIT, 106 MCT). Overall, AIT resulted in a significantly larger increase in peakVO2 [+1.60 mL/kg/min (95% CI 0.18-3.02; p = 0.03)] compared with MCT. MCT seemed to be more effective in reducing body weight (-0.78 kg; 95% CI -0.01 to 1.58; p = 0.05).

Limitations: The small number of studies might have affected the power to reach significance for the secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: In CAD patients with preserved and/or reduced LVEF, AIT is superior to MCT for improving peakVO2, while MCT seems to be more effective in reducing body weight. However, large, well-designed, randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 - PubMed
    1. Am Heart J. 2008 Aug;156(2):292-300 - PubMed
    1. Eur Heart J. 2012 Dec;33(23):2917-27 - PubMed
    1. Int J Cardiol. 2012 Jul 12;158(2):290-1 - PubMed
    1. Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2010 May 26;4:127-34 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources