High-intensity interval training in patients with intermittent claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Provision, uptake, adherence, and completion rates for supervised exercise programs (SEP) for intermittent claudication (IC) are low. A shorter, more time-efficient, 6-week, high-intensity interval training (HIIT) program may be an effective alternative that is more acceptable to patients and easier to deliver. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of HIIT for patients with IC. METHODS: A single arm proof-of-concept study, performed in secondary care, recruiting patients with IC referred to usual-care SEPs. Supervised HIIT was performed three times per week for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was feasibility and tolerability. Potential efficacy and potential safety were considered, and an integrated qualitative study was undertaken to consider acceptability. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were screened: 165 (59%) were eligible, and 40 (25%) were recruited. The majority (n = 31; 78%) of participants completed the HIIT program. The remaining nine patients were withdrawn or chose to withdraw. Completers attended 99% of training sessions, completed 85% of sessions in full, and performed 84% of completed intervals at the required intensity. There were no related serious adverse events. Maximum walking distance (+94 m; 95% confidence interval, 66.6-120.8 m) and the SF-36 physical component summary (+2.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.3-4.1) were improved following completion of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake to HIIT was comparable to SEPs in patients with IC, but completion rates were higher. HIIT appears feasible, tolerable, and potentially safe and beneficial for patients with IC. It may provide a more readily deliverable, acceptable form of SEP. Research comparing HIIT with usual-care SEPs appears warranted.

Tailored risk assessment and forecasting in intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend cardiovascular risk reduction and supervised exercise therapy as the first line of treatment in intermittent claudication, but implementation challenges and poor patient compliance lead to significant variation in management and therefore outcomes. The development of a precise risk stratification tool is proposed through a machine-learning algorithm that aims to provide personalized outcome predictions for different management strategies. METHODS: Feature selection was performed using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method. The model was developed using a bootstrapped sample based on patients with intermittent claudication from a vascular centre to predict chronic limb-threatening ischaemia, two or more revascularization procedures, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major adverse limb events. Algorithm performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration curves were generated to assess the consistency between predicted and actual outcomes. Decision curve analysis was employed to evaluate the clinical utility. Validation was performed using a similar dataset. RESULTS: The bootstrapped sample of 10 000 patients was based on 255 patients. The model was validated using a similar sample of 254 patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for risk of progression to chronic limb-threatening ischaemia at 2 years (0.892), risk of progression to chronic limb-threatening ischaemia at 5 years (0.866), likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events within 5 years (0.836), likelihood of major adverse limb events within 5 years (0.891), and likelihood of two or more revascularization procedures within 5 years (0.896) demonstrated excellent discrimination. Calibration curves demonstrated good consistency between predicted and actual outcomes and decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility. Logistic regression yielded slightly lower area under the receiver operating characteristic curves for these outcomes compared with the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator algorithm (0.728, 0.717, 0.746, 0.756, and 0.733 respectively). External calibration curve and decision curve analysis confirmed the reliability and clinical utility of the model, surpassing traditional logistic regression. CONCLUSION: The machine-learning algorithm successfully predicts outcomes for patients with intermittent claudication across various initial treatment strategies, offering potential for improved risk stratification and patient outcomes.

High-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of international consensus regarding the prescription of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). AIMS: To assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of low-volume HIIT compared with moderate-intensity steady-state (MISS) exercise training for people with CAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a multi-centre RCT, recruiting 382 patients from 6 outpatient CR centres. Participants were randomized to twice-weekly HIIT (n = 187) or MISS (n = 195) for 8 weeks. HIIT consisted of 10 × 1 min intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1 min periods of recovery. MISS was 20-40 min of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (60-80% maximum capacity). The primary outcome was the change in cardiorespiratory fitness [peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak)] at 8 week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular disease risk markers, cardiac structure and function, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. At 8 weeks, VO2peak improved more with HIIT (2.37 mL.kg-1.min-1; SD, 3.11) compared with MISS (1.32 mL.kg-1.min-1; SD, 2.66). After adjusting for age, sex, and study site, the difference between arms was 1.04 mL.kg-1.min-1 (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.69; P = 0.002). Only one serious adverse event was possibly related to HIIT. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CAD, low-volume HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness more than MISS by a clinically meaningful margin. Low-volume HIIT is a safe, well-tolerated, and clinically effective intervention that produces short-term improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. It should be considered by all CR programmes as an adjunct or alternative to MISS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02784873. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02784873.

Cardiac rehabilitation exercise training can improve cardiorespiratory fitness and quality of life for people with coronary artery disease, but sometimes, it is not effective. The intensity of the exercise training may be important. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to test if moderate-intensity exercise or high-intensity exercise was better.High-intensity interval training was more effective than moderate-intensity exercise training for improving cardiorespiratory fitness in people with coronary artery disease attending cardiac rehabilitation.High-intensity interval training was safe and well tolerated.

Does exercise prescription based on estimated heart rate training zones exceed the ventilatory anaerobic threshold in patients with coronary heart disease undergoing usual-care cardiovascular rehabilitation? A United Kingdom perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the United Kingdom (UK), exercise intensity is prescribed from a fixed percentage range (% heart rate reserve (%HRR)) in cardiac rehabilitation programmes. We aimed to determine the accuracy of this approach by comparing it with an objective, threshold-based approach incorporating the accurate determination of ventilatory anaerobic threshold (VAT). We also aimed to investigate the role of baseline cardiorespiratory fitness status and exercise testing mode dependency (cycle vs. treadmill ergometer) on these relationships. DESIGN AND METHODS: A maximal cardiopulmonary exercise test was conducted on a cycle ergometer or a treadmill before and following usual-care circuit training from two separate cardiac rehabilitation programmes from a single region in the UK. The heart rate corresponding to VAT was compared with current heart rate-based exercise prescription guidelines. RESULTS: We included 112 referred patients (61 years (59-63); body mass index 29 kg·m-2 (29-30); 88% male). There was a significant but relatively weak correlation (r = 0.32; p = 0.001) between measured and predicted %HRR, and values were significantly different from each other (p = 0.005). Within this cohort, we found that 55% of patients had their VAT identified outside of the 40-70% predicted HRR exercise training zone. In the majority of participants (45%), the VAT occurred at an exercise intensity <40% HRR. Moreover, 57% of patients with low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness achieved VAT at <40% HRR, whereas 30% of patients with higher fitness achieved their VAT at >70% HRR. VAT was significantly higher on the treadmill than the cycle ergometer (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the UK, current guidelines for prescribing exercise intensity are based on a fixed percentage range. Our findings indicate that this approach may be inaccurate in a large proportion of patients undertaking cardiac rehabilitation.