Article

Design We aimed to evaluate the effect of progressive resistance training on
cardiorespiratory fitness and muscular strength in coronary heart disease, when
compared to control or aerobic training, and when combined with aerobic training.
Secondary aims were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of progressive resistance
training on other physiological and clinical outcomes. Methods and results
Electronic databases were searched from inception until July 2016. Designs
included progressive resistance training vs control, progressive resistance
training vs aerobic training, and combined training vs aerobic training. From
268,778 titles, 34 studies were included (1940 participants; 71.9% male; age 60
+/- 7 years). Progressive resistance training was more effective than control for
lower (standardized mean difference 0.57, 95% confidence interval (0.17-0.96))
and upper (1.43 (0.73-2.13)) body strength. Aerobic fitness improved similarly
after progressive resistance training (16.9%) or aerobic training (21.0%);
(standardized mean difference -0.13, 95% confidence interval (-0.35-0.08)).
Combined training was more effective than aerobic training for aerobic fitness
(0.21 (0.09-0.34), lower (0.62 (0.32-0.92)) and upper (0.51 (0.27-0.74)) body
strength. Twenty studies reported adverse event information, with five reporting
64 cardiovascular complications, 63 during aerobic training. Conclusion Isolated
progressive resistance training resulted in an increase in lower and upper body
strength, and improved aerobic fitness to a similar degree as aerobic training in
coronary heart disease cohorts. Importantly, when progressive resistance training
was added to aerobic training, effects on both fitness and strength were enhanced
compared to aerobic training alone. Reporting of adverse events was poor, and
clinical gaps were identified for women, older adults, high intensity progressive
resistance training and long-term outcomes, warranting future trials to confirm safety and effectiveness.

Langue : ANGLAIS