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.

Background: Recent evidence suggests that routine exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) may not lead to a substantial increase in estimated peak oxygen uptake (VȮ 2peak ). This could reduce the potential benefits of CR and explain why CR no longer improves patient survival in recent studies. We aimed to determine whether routine exercise-based CR increases VȮ 2peak using gold-standard maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), and to quantify the exercise training stimulus which might be insufficient in patients undertaking CR. Methods: We studied the effects of a routine, twice weekly, exercise-based CR programme for eight weeks (intervention group) compared with abstention from supervised exercise training (control group) in patients with coronary heart disease. The primary outcome was VȮ 2peak measured using CPET. We also measured changes in body composition using dual X-ray absorptiometry, carotid intima-media thickness, hs-CRP and N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide at baseline, 10 weeks and 12 months. We also calculated the Calibre 5-year all-cause mortality risk score. Results: Seventy patients (age 63.1 SD10.0 years; BMI 29.2 SD4.0 kg•m −2 ; 86% male) were recruited (n = 48 intervention; n = 22 controls). The mean aerobic exercise training duration was 23 min per training session, and the mean exercise training intensity was 45.9% of heart rate reserve. VȮ 2peak was 23•3 ml•kg -1 •min −1 at baseline, and there were no changes in VȮ 2peak between groups at any time point. The intervention had no effect on any of the secondary endpoints. Conclusion: Routine CR does not lead to an increase in VȮ 2peak and is unlikely to improve long-term physiological outcomes.

IntroductionCurrent international guidelines for cardiac rehabilitation (CR) advocate moderate-intensity exercise training (MISS, moderate-intensity steady state). This recommendation predates significant advances in medical therapy for coronary heart disease (CHD) and may not be the most appropriate strategy for the ‘modern’ patient with CHD. High-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be a safe and effective alternative, resulting in greater improvements in peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak). To date, HIIT trials have predominantly been proof-of-concept studies in the laboratory setting and conducted outside the UK. The purpose of this multicentre randomised controlled trial is to compare the effects of HIIT and MISS training in patients with CHD attending UK CR programmes.Methods and analysisThis pragmatic study will randomly allocate 510 patients with CHD to 8 weeks of twice weekly HIIT or MISS training at 3 centres in the UK. HIIT will consist of 10 high-intensity (85–90% peak power output (PPO)) and 10 low-intensity (20–25% PPO) intervals, each lasting 1 min. MISS training will follow usual care recommendations, adhering to currently accepted UK guidelines (ie, >20 min continuous exercise at 40–70% heart rate reserve). Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 8 weeks and 12 months. The primary outcome for the trial will be change in VO2 peak as determined by maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Secondary measures will assess physiological, psychosocial and economic outcomes.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol V.1.0, dated 1 February 2016, was approved by the NHS Health Research Authority, East Midlands—Leicester South Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0079). Recruitment will start in August 2016 and will be completed in June 2018. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national and international scientific meetings and are expected to inform future national guidelines for exercise training in UK CR.Trial registration numberNCT02784873; pre-results.

Objectives Supervised exercise programmes (SEPs) are a vital treatment for people with intermittent claudication, leading improvements in walking distance and quality of life and are recommended in multiple national and international guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the use and structure of SEPs in the United Kingdom (UK). Design We conducted an anonymous online survey using the Jisc platform comprising of 40 questions. The survey was designed to address key areas such as access, provision, uptake and delivery of SEPs in the United Kingdom. Ethical approval was obtained from Coventry University (P108729). Methods The list of trusts providing vascular services was obtained from the National Vascular Registry (NVR) report. The survey was disseminated via social media, The Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland and the Society for Vascular Technology. Data were exported to a Microsoft Excel document and analysed using simple descriptive statistics. Results Of 93 vascular units identified, we received response from 48. Of these, 23 had access to an exercise programme (48%). The majority of SEPs were exclusively for PAD patients (77%), with 21% using integrated services. 67% of respondents were providing a circuit-based programme, and 5 out of 23 were meeting the dose recommendations in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines. Respondents felt that programmes were moderately to extremely important to patients, slightly to very important to clinicians and not at all important to slightly important to commissioning/funding bodies. Conclusion SEPs are a well-established first-line treatment for patients with IC and they are recommended by NICE guidelines. Despite this, many patients still do not have access to an exercise programme, and clinicians do not feel that they have support from commissioning/funding bodies to develop them. There is an urgent need for funding, development and delivery of SEPs in the United Kingdom.

Background There is a lack of international consensus regarding the prescription of high-intensity interval exercise training (HIIT) for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Aim 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 We conducted a multi-centre RCT, recruiting 382 patients from 6 outpatient CR centres. Participants were randomised to twice-weekly HIIT (n = 187) or MISS (n = 195) for 8 weeks. HIIT consisted of 10 × 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (&gt;85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. MISS was 20-40 minutes 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. Results At 8 weeks, VO2  peak 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 1 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