PMID 26517867

Research
All papers

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training versus Continuous Training on Physical Fitness, Cardiovascular Function and Quality of Life in Heart Failure Patients

Benda NM, Seeger JP, Stevens GG, Hijmans-Kersten BT, van Dijk AP, Bellersen L, Lamfers EJ, Hopman MT, Thijssen DH

Question

Is a feasible low-frequency cycling HIIT protocol superior to continuous training for improving physical fitness, cardiovascular function, and quality of life in stable heart failure patients?

Summary

In stable NYHA II-III heart failure patients, 12 weeks of supervised cycling HIIT twice weekly improved fitness measures about as much as moderate continuous cycling. The HIIT protocol was designed to be feasible, with 10 one-minute high-intensity intervals at 90% maximal workload and long low-intensity recoveries, but it did not outperform continuous training or improve resting cardiovascular structure/function or overall quality of life.

Methodology

  • Stable NYHA II-III heart failure patients
  • 29 participants.
  • Cycle ergometer.
  • Work intervals: 1 minute at 90% maximal workload.
  • Recovery: 2.5 minutes at 30% maximal workload.
  • Intensity: 90% maximal workload; Borg 15-17 target.
  • 50 minutes including warm-up and cool-down.
  • 2 sessions per week.
  • 12 weeks.
  • Allocated exercise comparison with non-randomized control group
  • VO2peak, Cardiac function, Vascular function, and Quality of life were tracked.

Outcomes

Fitness

Training improved maximal workload, predicted-relative VO2peak, oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold, and maximal oxygen pulse.

All p<0.05 for time effects; no HIT versus CT differences.

Improved

Superiority

HIT was not superior to CT for fitness, cardiovascular function, or quality of life.

Time-by-group effects non-significant.

No clear change

Vascular

No significant changes in measured vascular function/structure.

No clear change

QoL

SF-36 physical function improved, but SF-36 total and MLHFQ did not.

SF-36 physical function p<0.05; total SF-36 and MLHFQ not significant.

Mixed

Insights

  • For high-risk clinical populations, feasibility can be improved with twice-weekly sessions and long recoveries.
  • HIIT is not automatically superior to continuous training when total workload and supervision are controlled.

Limitations

  • Small sample
  • Non-randomized control group
  • Limited power for HIT versus CT differences
  • No comparison of different HIT interval lengths

Safety

  • One patient in each training group dropped out due to musculoskeletal complaints.
  • One patient in each training group dropped out due to progression of heart failure.
  • The study was monitored by a data safety monitoring board.