| Title |
Aerobic Interval vs. Continuous Training in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease or Heart Failure: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with a Focus on Secondary Outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40279-018-0885-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nele Pattyn, Randy Beulque, Véronique Cornelissen |
| Abstract |
In a previous meta-analysis including nine trials comparing aerobic interval training with aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease, we found a significant difference in peak oxygen uptake favoring aerobic interval training. The objective of this study was to (1) update the original meta-analysis focussing on peak oxygen uptake and (2) evaluate the effect on secondary outcomes. We conducted a systematic review with a meta-analysis by searching PubMed and SPORTDiscus databases up to March 2017. We included randomized trials comparing aerobic interval training and aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease or chronic heart failure. The primary outcome was change in peak oxygen uptake. Secondary outcomes included cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, cardiac and vascular function, and quality of life. Twenty-four papers were identified (n = 1080; mean age 60.7 ± 10.7 years). Aerobic interval training resulted in a higher increase in peak oxygen uptake compared with aerobic continuous training in all patients (1.40 mL/kg/min; p < 0.001), and in the subgroups of patients with coronary artery disease (1.25 mL/kg/min; p = 0.001) and patients with chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (1.46 mL/kg/min; p = 0.03). Moreover, a larger increase of the first ventilatory threshold and peak heart rate was observed after aerobic interval training in all patients. Other cardiorespiratory parameters, cardiovascular risk factors, and quality of life were equally affected. This meta-analysis adds further evidence to the clinically significant larger increase in peak oxygen uptake following aerobic interval training vs. aerobic continuous training in patients with coronary artery disease and chronic heart failure. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the safety of aerobic interval training and the sustainability of the training response over longer periods. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 15 | 13% |
| Canada | 12 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 12 | 11% |
| Brazil | 5 | 4% |
| Australia | 4 | 4% |
| Spain | 4 | 4% |
| Belgium | 3 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 3 | 3% |
| Luxembourg | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 17% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 61 | 54% |
| Scientists | 35 | 31% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 16 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 165 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 30 | 18% |
| Unknown | 57 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 27 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 7% |
| Unknown | 65 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 January 2019.
All research outputs
#614,107
of 25,109,453 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#582
of 2,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,172
of 337,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#23
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,109,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 55.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.