Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/87023
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorElliott, A.-
dc.contributor.authorRajopadhyaya, K.-
dc.contributor.authorBentley, D.-
dc.contributor.authorBeltrame, J.-
dc.contributor.authorAromataris, E.-
dc.date.issued2015-
dc.identifier.citationHeart Lung and Circulation, 2015; 24(2):149-157-
dc.identifier.issn1443-9506-
dc.identifier.issn1444-2892-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2440/87023-
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: High aerobic capacity is inversely related to cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Recent studies suggest greater improvements in aerobic capacity with high-intensity interval training (interval) compared to moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise (continuous). Therefore we perform a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of INTERVAL versus CONTINUOUS in aerobic capacity, amongst patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved ejection fraction METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, clinicaltrials.gov and TROVE for randomised controlled trials comparing INTERVAL with CONTINUOUS in patients with CAD. Studies published in the English language up to December 2013 were eligible for inclusion. Aerobic capacity, quantified by peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) post exercise training was extracted and compared post-intervention between INTERVAL and CONTINUOUS by way of a fixed model meta-analysis. Secondary outcomes including anaerobic threshold, blood pressure and high-density lipoproteins (HDL) were also analysed. RESULTS: Six independent studies with 229 patients (n=99 randomised to INTERVAL) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significantly higher increase in VO2peak following INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS (Weighted Mean Difference=1.53 ml•kg(-1)min(-1), 95% CI 0.84 to 2.23) with homogeneity displayed between studies (Chi Squared=2.69; P=0.7). Significant effects of INTERVAL compared to CONTINUOUS were also found for anaerobic threshold but not systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSION: In patients with CAD, INTERVAL appears more effective than CONTINUOUS for the improvement of aerobic capacity in patients with CAD. However, long-term studies assessing morbidity and mortality following INTERVAL are required before this approach can be more widely adopted.-
dc.description.statementofresponsibilityAdrian D. Elliott, Kanchani Rajopadhyaya, David J. Bentley, John F. Beltrame, Edoardo C. Aromataris-
dc.language.isoen-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.rights© 2014 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.-
dc.subjectRehabilitation-
dc.subjectMyocardial infarction-
dc.subjectCoronary artery bypass graft-
dc.subjectRisk factors-
dc.subjectOxygen uptake-
dc.subjectRehabilitation Myocardial infarction Coronary artery bypass graft Risk factors Oxygen uptake-
dc.titleInterval training versus continuous exercise in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis-
dc.typeJournal article-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.hlc.2014.09.001-
pubs.publication-statusPublished-
dc.identifier.orcidElliott, A. [0000-0002-5951-4239]-
dc.identifier.orcidBeltrame, J. [0000-0002-4294-6510]-
dc.identifier.orcidAromataris, E. [0000-0001-7238-5833]-
Appears in Collections:Aurora harvest 2
Medical Sciences publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.