Effects of interval training on risk markers for arrhythmic death: a randomized controlled trial

• Published in: Clinical rehabilitation Vol. 33; no. 8; pp. 1320 - 1330
• Main Authors: Boidin, Maxime, Gayda, Mathieu, Henri, Christine, Hayami, Doug, Trachsel, Lukas D, Besnier, Florent, Lalongé, Julie, Juneau, Martin, Nigam, Anil
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England SAGE Publications 01-08-2019; Sage Publications Ltd
• Subjects: Acute Coronary Syndrome - rehabilitation; Acute coronary syndromes; Arrhythmias, Cardiac - epidemiology; Cardiac arrhythmia; Cardiology and cardiovascular system; Cardiovascular disease; Clinical trials; Coronary artery disease; Death & dying; Double-Blind Method; Electrocardiography; Evidence-based medicine; Female; Heart Rate; High-Intensity Interval Training; Human health and pathology; Humans; Interval training; Intervention; Life Sciences; Male; Middle Aged; Physical Conditioning, Human - methods; Power; QT dispersion; Recovery; Rehabilitation; Risk factors; Secondary Prevention; Variability; Canada; Montreal Quebec Canada; Secondary prevention; coronary heart disease; autonomic nervous system; safety; interval training
• ISSN: 0269-2155; 1477-0873
• DOI: 10.1177/0269215519840388

Objective:
To compare the effects of high-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training on risk markers of arrhythmic death in patients who recently suffered from an acute coronary syndrome.
Design:
Double-blind (patient and evaluator) randomized controlled trial.
Setting:
Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Centre (EPIC Centre) of the Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal, Canada.
Subjects:
A total of 43 patients were randomized following an acute coronary syndrome.
Interventions:
Patients were assigned to either high-intensity interval training (n = 18) or isocaloric moderate-intensity continuous training (n = 19), three times a week for a total of 36 sessions.
Main measures:
Heart rate recovery for 5 minutes, heart rate variability for 24 hours, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, and QT dispersion were measured before and after the 36 sessions of training.
Results:
Among the 43 patients randomized, 6 participants in the high-intensity interval training group stopped training for reasons unrelated to exercise training and were excluded from the analyses. Heart rate recovery improved solely in the high-intensity interval training group, particularly at the end of recovery period (p < 0.05). There were no differences in heart rate variability, occurrence of ventricular arrhythmias, or QT dispersion parameters between the groups at study end.
Conclusion:
Despite the lack of power to detect any large difference between the two interventions with respect to risk markers of arrhythmic death, high-intensity interval training appears safe and may be more effective at improving heart rate recovery relative to moderate-intensity continuous training in our patients following acute coronary syndrome.