Article

The health benefits of high-intensity interval training in cardiac
rehabilitation warrant further research. We compared the effectiveness of
low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic exercise
training in chronic heart failure. DESIGN : Unblinded, two arm parallel
design with random assignment to exercise interventions in out-patient hospital
rehabilitation gym. METHODS: Patients with signs of chronic heart failure and
ejection fraction < 45%, (mean age: 59.1 years (standard deviation (SD) 8.6); 3
women) completed 6 months of exercise using continuous aerobic exercise training
(n = 9) or high-intensity interval training (n = 8). Cardiorespiratory fitness
was determined during cycle ergometry using respiratory gas exchange analysis.
Functional capacity was assessed via sit-to-stand and gait speed. Quality of life
was assessed using the MOS Short-Form 36 and Minnesota living with heart failure
questionnaires. Cardiac autonomic regulation was assessed using Heart Rate
Variability. RESULTS: Analysis of Covariance revealed significant time effects
but no group x time interactions for exercise and functional capacity outcomes.
Peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak) improved by a mean of 14.9% (SD 16.3%) from baseline
and by 22% (SD 28.3) at ventilatory threshold in both groups. Sit-to-stand (11.9
(SD 11%)) and gait speed (16.0 (SD 19%)) improved similarly in both groups. No
changes in quality of life or heart rate variability were noted. Training
adaptations in high-intensity interval training were achieved despite a
significantly reduced time commitment and total work volume compared to
continuous aerobic exercise training. CONCLUSION: Low-volume high-intensity
interval training is a feasible and well tolerated training modality in cardiac
rehabilitation settings, but is not more effective than continuous aerobic
exercise training.

Langue : ANGLAIS