Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30376749›Full record

SynthesisJournal of the American Heart Association2018

High-Intensity Interval Training for Patients With Cardiovascular Disease-Is It Safe? A Systematic Review.

Michael A Wewege, Dohee Ahn, Jennifer Yu, Kevin Liou, Andrew Keech

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 14 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 14 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. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Michael A Wewege1 Department of Exercise Physiology School of Medical Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Dohee Ahn1 Department of Exercise Physiology School of Medical Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Jennifer Yu2 Department of Cardiology Prince of Wales Hospital and the Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Kevin Liou2 Department of Cardiology Prince of Wales Hospital and the Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.
Andrew Keech1 Department of Exercise Physiology School of Medical Sciences University of New South Wales Sydney Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background Cardiac rehabilitation ( CR ) for patients with cardiovascular disease has traditionally involved low- to moderate-intensity continuous aerobic exercise training ( MICT ). There is growing and robust evidence that high-intensity interval training ( HIIT ) shows similar or greater efficacy compared with MICT across a range of cardiovascular and metabolic measures, in both healthy populations and populations with a chronic illness. However, there is understandable concern about the safety aspects of applying HIIT in CR settings. This systematic review analyzed safety data drawn from recent proof-of-concept studies of HIIT during CR among patients with cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results We included trials comparing HIIT with either MICT or usual care in patients with coronary artery disease or heart failure participating in tertiary care services, such as phase 2 (outpatient) CR . Adverse events occurring during or up to 4 hours after an exercise training session were collated. There were 23 studies included, which analyzed 1117 participants ( HIIT =547; MICT =570). One major cardiovascular adverse event occurred in relation to an HIIT session, equating to 1 major cardiovascular event per 17 083 training sessions (11 333 training hours). One minor cardiovascular adverse events and 3 noncardiovascular adverse events (primarily musculoskeletal complaints) were also reported for HIIT . Two noncardiovascular events were reported in relation to MICT . Conclusions HIIT has shown a relatively low rate of major adverse cardiovascular events for patients with coronary artery disease or heart failure when applied within CR settings.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyHigh-Intensity Interval TrainingCardiac RehabilitationCardiovascular DiseasesHumanscardiac rehabilitationexerciseexercise capacityexercise trainingsafety

Identifiers

PMID30376749
PMCPMC6404189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.