High-Intensity Interval Exercise in Chronic Heart Failure: Protocol Optimization

Abstract Background There are little data on the optimization of high-intensity aerobic interval exercise (HIIE) protocols in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Therefore, we compared acute cardiopulmonary responses to 4 different HIIE protocols to identify the optimal one. Methods and Resul...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of cardiac failure 2012-02, Vol.18 (2), p.126-133
Hauptverfasser: Meyer, Philippe, MD, Normandin, Eve, BSc, Gayda, Mathieu, PhD, Billon, Guillaume, MSc, Guiraud, Thibaut, PhD, Bosquet, Laurent, PhD, Fortier, Annick, MSc, Juneau, Martin, MD, White, Michel, MD, Nigam, Anil, MD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Background There are little data on the optimization of high-intensity aerobic interval exercise (HIIE) protocols in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). Therefore, we compared acute cardiopulmonary responses to 4 different HIIE protocols to identify the optimal one. Methods and Results Twenty men with stable systolic CHF performed 4 different randomly ordered single HIIE sessions with measurement of gas exchange. For all protocols (A, B, C, and D) exercise intensity was set at 100% of peak power output (PPO). Interval duration was 30 seconds (A and B) or 90 seconds (C and D), and recovery was passive (A and C) or active (50% of PPO in B and D). Time spent above 85% of VO2peak and time above the ventilatory threshold were similar across all 4 HIIE protocols. Total exercise time was significantly longer in protocols with passive recovery intervals (A: 1,651 ± 347 s; C: 1,574 ± 382 s) compared with protocols with active recovery intervals (B: 986 ± 542 s; D: 961 ± 556 s). All protocols appeared to be safe, with exercise tolerance being superior during protocol A. Conclusion Among the 4 HIIE protocols tested, protocol A with short intervals and passive recovery appeared to be superior.
ISSN:1071-9164
1532-8414
DOI:10.1016/j.cardfail.2011.10.010