Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Purpose of Review The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals. Recent Findings Continuous aerobic training programs are successful in health prom...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Current hypertension reports 2020-03, Vol.22 (3), p.26-26, Article 26 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 26 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 26 |
| container_title | Current hypertension reports |
| container_volume | 22 |
| creator | Leal, Juliana Moraes Galliano, Leony Morgana Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo |
| description | Purpose of Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.
Recent Findings
Continuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.
Summary
PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO
2
max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82],
p
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2370505582</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2370397566</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-202cee920599622e8dfa6f3b570331081601661f038fff38a0bff1d8a45df5363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc9u1DAQhy1UREvhAbhUlrj0Yhjb6_zhVq0KW6kVCApXy5uMF1dZZ7GdRenL8Ko4pLQIqSePPN_8xtZHyCsObzhA-TZyXkPBQADjIIHdPiFHXMkFk5zzg6kWghULXh6S5zHeQAahLJ-RQym4UErBEfl1bi02ye3RY4y0t3TlNt_ZhU_oo0sjnaqwNx29DsZ55zf0G4Y4RHrVtxhMwn_YZe-T80Ofu_e083Q17jD8YfZIP5nk0Kf4jhr6ZYwJt_mioZ9x7_AnNb6lV5gMO_OmG6OLL8hTa7qIL-_OY_L1_fn1csUuP364WJ5dskaCSEyAaBBrAaquCyGwaq0prFyrEqTkUPECeFFwC7Ky1srKwNpa3lZmoVqrZCGPyemcuwv9jwFj0lsXG-w64zH_RwtZggKlKpHR1_-hN_0Q8ntnStalKqZAPlNN6GMMaPUuuK0Jo-agJ3t6tqezFD3Z07d55uQueVhvsb2f-KsrA2IGYm75DYaH1Y-n_gaMD6d8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2370397566</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Leal, Juliana Moraes ; Galliano, Leony Morgana ; Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</creator><creatorcontrib>Leal, Juliana Moraes ; Galliano, Leony Morgana ; Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose of Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.
Recent Findings
Continuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.
Summary
PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO
2
max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 5.64 mmHg [95% CI = 1.69, 9.52],
p
= 0.005) and in DBP (MICT: MD, 2.41 mmHg [95% CI = 1.09, 3.72],
p
= 0.0003; and HIIT: MD, 4.8 mmHg [95% CI = 2.9, 6.7],
p
< 0.00001) compared with the control group. No differences were found in the SBP values (MD, 1.13 mmHg [95% CI = − 0.01, 2.27],
p
= 0.05); however, differences were found between groups in DBP (MD, 1.63 mmHg [95% CI = 0.83, 2.44],
p
= 0.0001). In the secondary outcome, both interventions increased VO
2
max in comparison with control groups (MICT: MD, 1.30 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 0.92, 1.68],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 4.90 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 3.77, 6.04],
p
< 0.00001), and HIIT promoted greater improvement than MICT (MD, 2.52 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 1.90, 3.13],
p
< 0.0001). In conclusion, HIIT and MICT promote reduction in SBP in adults with hypertension, and HIIT showed a greater magnitude in DBP reduction. For hypertensive patients, HIIT may be associated with a greater improvement in VO
2
max than MICT might.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-6417</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1534-3111</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32125550</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Springer US</publisher><subject>Aerobics ; Blood pressure ; Cardiology ; Clinical trials ; Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis (WJ Kostis ; Exercise ; Family Medicine ; Fitness training programs ; General Practice ; Guidelines ; Health promotion ; Hypertension ; Internal Medicine ; Interval training ; Intervention ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Meta-analysis ; Metabolic Diseases ; Mortality ; Nephrology ; Physical fitness ; Primary Care Medicine ; Risk factors ; Section Editor ; Standard deviation ; Studies ; Systematic review ; Topical Collection on Guidelines/Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis</subject><ispartof>Current hypertension reports, 2020-03, Vol.22 (3), p.26-26, Article 26</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020</rights><rights>Current Hypertension Reports is a copyright of Springer, (2020). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-202cee920599622e8dfa6f3b570331081601661f038fff38a0bff1d8a45df5363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-202cee920599622e8dfa6f3b570331081601661f038fff38a0bff1d8a45df5363</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32125550$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leal, Juliana Moraes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galliano, Leony Morgana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</creatorcontrib><title>Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><title>Current hypertension reports</title><addtitle>Curr Hypertens Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Curr Hypertens Rep</addtitle><description>Purpose of Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.
Recent Findings
Continuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.
Summary
PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO
2
max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 5.64 mmHg [95% CI = 1.69, 9.52],
p
= 0.005) and in DBP (MICT: MD, 2.41 mmHg [95% CI = 1.09, 3.72],
p
= 0.0003; and HIIT: MD, 4.8 mmHg [95% CI = 2.9, 6.7],
p
< 0.00001) compared with the control group. No differences were found in the SBP values (MD, 1.13 mmHg [95% CI = − 0.01, 2.27],
p
= 0.05); however, differences were found between groups in DBP (MD, 1.63 mmHg [95% CI = 0.83, 2.44],
p
= 0.0001). In the secondary outcome, both interventions increased VO
2
max in comparison with control groups (MICT: MD, 1.30 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 0.92, 1.68],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 4.90 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 3.77, 6.04],
p
< 0.00001), and HIIT promoted greater improvement than MICT (MD, 2.52 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 1.90, 3.13],
p
< 0.0001). In conclusion, HIIT and MICT promote reduction in SBP in adults with hypertension, and HIIT showed a greater magnitude in DBP reduction. For hypertensive patients, HIIT may be associated with a greater improvement in VO
2
max than MICT might.</description><subject>Aerobics</subject><subject>Blood pressure</subject><subject>Cardiology</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis (WJ Kostis</subject><subject>Exercise</subject><subject>Family Medicine</subject><subject>Fitness training programs</subject><subject>General Practice</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Health promotion</subject><subject>Hypertension</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Interval training</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Metabolic Diseases</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Physical fitness</subject><subject>Primary Care Medicine</subject><subject>Risk factors</subject><subject>Section Editor</subject><subject>Standard deviation</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Topical Collection on Guidelines/Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis</subject><issn>1522-6417</issn><issn>1534-3111</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc9u1DAQhy1UREvhAbhUlrj0Yhjb6_zhVq0KW6kVCApXy5uMF1dZZ7GdRenL8Ko4pLQIqSePPN_8xtZHyCsObzhA-TZyXkPBQADjIIHdPiFHXMkFk5zzg6kWghULXh6S5zHeQAahLJ-RQym4UErBEfl1bi02ye3RY4y0t3TlNt_ZhU_oo0sjnaqwNx29DsZ55zf0G4Y4RHrVtxhMwn_YZe-T80Ofu_e083Q17jD8YfZIP5nk0Kf4jhr6ZYwJt_mioZ9x7_AnNb6lV5gMO_OmG6OLL8hTa7qIL-_OY_L1_fn1csUuP364WJ5dskaCSEyAaBBrAaquCyGwaq0prFyrEqTkUPECeFFwC7Ky1srKwNpa3lZmoVqrZCGPyemcuwv9jwFj0lsXG-w64zH_RwtZggKlKpHR1_-hN_0Q8ntnStalKqZAPlNN6GMMaPUuuK0Jo-agJ3t6tqezFD3Z07d55uQueVhvsb2f-KsrA2IGYm75DYaH1Y-n_gaMD6d8</recordid><startdate>20200303</startdate><enddate>20200303</enddate><creator>Leal, Juliana Moraes</creator><creator>Galliano, Leony Morgana</creator><creator>Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</creator><general>Springer US</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200303</creationdate><title>Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</title><author>Leal, Juliana Moraes ; Galliano, Leony Morgana ; Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c302t-202cee920599622e8dfa6f3b570331081601661f038fff38a0bff1d8a45df5363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aerobics</topic><topic>Blood pressure</topic><topic>Cardiology</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis (WJ Kostis</topic><topic>Exercise</topic><topic>Family Medicine</topic><topic>Fitness training programs</topic><topic>General Practice</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Health promotion</topic><topic>Hypertension</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Interval training</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Metabolic Diseases</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Physical fitness</topic><topic>Primary Care Medicine</topic><topic>Risk factors</topic><topic>Section Editor</topic><topic>Standard deviation</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Topical Collection on Guidelines/Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leal, Juliana Moraes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galliano, Leony Morgana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Current hypertension reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leal, Juliana Moraes</au><au>Galliano, Leony Morgana</au><au>Del Vecchio, Fabrício Boscolo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</atitle><jtitle>Current hypertension reports</jtitle><stitle>Curr Hypertens Rep</stitle><addtitle>Curr Hypertens Rep</addtitle><date>2020-03-03</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>26</spage><epage>26</epage><pages>26-26</pages><artnum>26</artnum><issn>1522-6417</issn><eissn>1534-3111</eissn><abstract>Purpose of Review
The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on blood pressure of hypertensive individuals.
Recent Findings
Continuous aerobic training programs are successful in health promotion and are effective in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) modulation. However, HIIT seems to be superior to MICT to improvement of cardiorespiratory fitness.
Summary
PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared chronic effects of HIIT and MICT on BP in hypertensive subjects. Pre- and post-intervention changes in maximal oxygen uptake (VO
2
max) between MICT and HIIT were analyzed. Both interventions presented significant differences in SBP (MICT: mean difference (MD), 3.7 mmHg [95% CI = 2.57, 4.82],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 5.64 mmHg [95% CI = 1.69, 9.52],
p
= 0.005) and in DBP (MICT: MD, 2.41 mmHg [95% CI = 1.09, 3.72],
p
= 0.0003; and HIIT: MD, 4.8 mmHg [95% CI = 2.9, 6.7],
p
< 0.00001) compared with the control group. No differences were found in the SBP values (MD, 1.13 mmHg [95% CI = − 0.01, 2.27],
p
= 0.05); however, differences were found between groups in DBP (MD, 1.63 mmHg [95% CI = 0.83, 2.44],
p
= 0.0001). In the secondary outcome, both interventions increased VO
2
max in comparison with control groups (MICT: MD, 1.30 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 0.92, 1.68],
p
< 0.00001; and HIIT: MD, 4.90 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 3.77, 6.04],
p
< 0.00001), and HIIT promoted greater improvement than MICT (MD, 2.52 ml/kg/min [95% CI = 1.90, 3.13],
p
< 0.0001). In conclusion, HIIT and MICT promote reduction in SBP in adults with hypertension, and HIIT showed a greater magnitude in DBP reduction. For hypertensive patients, HIIT may be associated with a greater improvement in VO
2
max than MICT might.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Springer US</pub><pmid>32125550</pmid><doi>10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z</doi><tpages>1</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1522-6417 |
| ispartof | Current hypertension reports, 2020-03, Vol.22 (3), p.26-26, Article 26 |
| issn | 1522-6417 1534-3111 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2370505582 |
| source | SpringerLink Journals |
| subjects | Aerobics Blood pressure Cardiology Clinical trials Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis (WJ Kostis Exercise Family Medicine Fitness training programs General Practice Guidelines Health promotion Hypertension Internal Medicine Interval training Intervention Medicine Medicine & Public Health Meta-analysis Metabolic Diseases Mortality Nephrology Physical fitness Primary Care Medicine Risk factors Section Editor Standard deviation Studies Systematic review Topical Collection on Guidelines/Clinical Trials/Meta-Analysis |
| title | Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training in Hypertensive Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T04%3A12%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effectiveness%20of%20High-Intensity%20Interval%20Training%20Versus%20Moderate-Intensity%20Continuous%20Training%20in%20Hypertensive%20Patients:%20a%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta-Analysis&rft.jtitle=Current%20hypertension%20reports&rft.au=Leal,%20Juliana%20Moraes&rft.date=2020-03-03&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=26&rft.epage=26&rft.pages=26-26&rft.artnum=26&rft.issn=1522-6417&rft.eissn=1534-3111&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s11906-020-1030-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2370397566%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2370397566&rft_id=info:pmid/32125550&rfr_iscdi=true |