Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29502328›Full record

SynthesisSports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.)2018

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.

Nele Pattyn, Randy Beulque, Véronique Cornelissen

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Endurance Training Exercise Dose in Coronary Artery Disease Rehabilitation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nele PattynDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. Nele.pattyn@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0003-1829-1056
Randy BeulqueDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Véronique CornelissenDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

objectiveThe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsTwenty-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.

conclusionThis 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.

Indexed as

ExerciseExercise TherapyAgedCoronary Artery DiseaseFemaleHeart FailureHumansMaleMiddle AgedOxygen ConsumptionQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID29502328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.