Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effects of interval training on risk markers for arrhythmic death: a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Boidin M, Gayda M, Henri C, Hayami D, Trachsel LD, Besnier F, Lalonge J, Juneau M, Nigam A
Clinical Rehabilitation 2019 Apr 12:Epub ahead of print
clinical trial
6/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on risk markers of arrhythmic death in patients who recently suffered from an acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Double-blind (patient and evaluator) randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (EPIC Centre) of the Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada. SUBJECTS: A total of 43 patients were randomized following an acute coronary syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either high-intensity interval training (n = 18) or isocaloric moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 19), three times a week for a total of 36 sessions. MAIN MEASURES: Heart rate recovery for 5 minutes, heart rate variability for 24 hours, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, and QT dispersion were measured before and after the 36 sessions of training. RESULTS: Among the 43 patients randomized, 6 participants in the high-intensity interval training group stopped training for reasons unrelated to exercise training and were excluded from the analyses. Heart rate recovery improved solely in the high-intensity interval training group, particularly at the end of recovery period (p < 0.05). There were no differences in heart rate variability, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, or QT dispersion parameters between the groups at study end. CONCLUSION: Despite the lack of power to detect any large difference between the two interventions with respect to risk markers of arrhythmic death, high-intensity interval training appears safe and may be more effective at improving heart rate recovery relative to moderate-intensity continuous training in our patients following acute coronary syndrome.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help