↓ Skip to main content

Superior Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training vs. Moderate Continuous Training on Arterial Stiffness in Episodic Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Superior Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training vs. Moderate Continuous Training on Arterial Stiffness in Episodic Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2017.01086
Pubmed ID
Authors

Henner Hanssen, Alice Minghetti, Stefano Magon, Anja Rossmeissl, Athina Papadopoulou, Christopher Klenk, Arno Schmidt-Trucksäss, Oliver Faude, Lukas Zahner, Till Sprenger, Lars Donath

Abstract

Background: Migraine is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and vascular dysfunction. Since aerobic exercise can reduce cardiovascular risk, the present randomized controlled trail aimed at investigating the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIT) vs. moderate continuous exercise training (MCT) on arterial stiffness in migraine patients. Methods: Forty-eight episodic migraineurs were initially enrolled in the study. 37 patients [female: 30; age: 37 (SD: 10); BMI: 23.1 (5.2); Migraine days per month: 3.7 (2.5)] completed the intervention. Central blood pressure, pulse wave reflection, and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) were obtained by an oscillometric monitor. Incremental treadmill exercise testing yielded maximal and submaximal fitness parameters. Participants were randomly assigned to either HIT, MCT, or a control group (CON). The intervention groups trained twice a week over a 12-week intervention period. Results: After adjustment for between-group baseline differences, a moderate meaningful overall reduction of the augmentation index at 75 min-1 heart rate (AIx@75) was observed [partial eta squared ([Formula: see text]) = 0.16; p = 0.06]. With 91% likely beneficial effects, HIT was more effective in reducing AIx@75 than MCT [HIT: pre 22.0 (9.7), post 14.9 (13.0), standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.62; MCT: pre 16.6 (8.5), post 21.3 (10.4), SMD -0.49]. HIT induced a relevant reduction in central systolic blood pressure [cSBP: pre 118 (23) mmHg, post 110 (16) mmHg, SMD = 0.42] with a 59% possibly beneficial effect compared to CON, while MCT showed larger effects in lowering central diastolic blood pressure [pre 78 (7) mmHg, post 74 (7) mmHg, SMD = 0.61], presenting 60% possibly beneficial effects compared to CON. Central aortic PWV showed no changes in any of the three groups. Migraine days were reduced more successfully by HIT than MCT (HIT: SMD = 1.05; MCT: SMD = 0.43). Conclusion: HIT but not MCT reduces AIx@75 as a measure of pulse wave reflection and indirect marker of systemic arterial stiffness. Both exercise modalities beneficially affect central blood pressure. HIT proved to be an effective complementary treatment option to reduce vascular dysfunction and blood pressure in migraineurs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Other 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 7%
Other 23 23%
Unknown 27 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 19%
Sports and Recreations 18 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 34 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 16 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,904,242
of 24,247,965 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#3,310
of 14,859 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,916
of 448,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#79
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,247,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,859 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 448,507 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 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 73% of its contemporaries.