Low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic cycling in patients with chronic heart failure: A pragmatic randomised clinical trial of feasibility and effectiveness
View/ Open
Date
2014-04Author
Koufaki, Pelagia
Mercer, Tom
George, Keith P.
Nolan, James
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Koufaki, P., Mercer, T., George, K. & Nolan, J. (2014) Low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic cycling in patients with chronic heart failure: A pragmatic randomised clinical trial of feasibility and effectiveness, Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(4), pp. 348-356.
Abstract
Objectives: 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/Settings: 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 highintensity
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 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. Sitto-
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.