BACKGROUND
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), coronary artery disease (CAD), which is in the group of non-communicable diseases, is one of the most important causes of mortality in developed and developing countries, and its prevalence is increasing (1,2). It is seen that 45% of all deaths in our country are from cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and 36% (including 32% from CAD) are from heart diseases (3). Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) includes individually planned, supervised exercise interventions, medical assessments, risk profiling, education and counseling, and pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for cardiac patients. It is defined as a comprehensive and long-term program aiming to maximize the quality of life of cardiac patients in terms of physical, physiological, psychological, social, and work efficiency (4). The basic building block of the cardiac rehabilitation program, which is also used in treating coronary artery diseases, is aerobic exercise (5,6). Aerobic exercise can be performed intervally or continuously (7). Continuous exercise training is the more well-known type of exercise that continues at a constant value. In interval exercise training, in contrast to continuous exercise training, exercise is followed by intervals of exercise and recovery periods. Both types of exercise are recommended in cardiac rehabilitation by the European Society of Cardiology and the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (8). In the literature, aerobic exercise training has been frequently used in treating coronary artery disease; however, studies examining the effect of aerobic exercise types on this disease have yet to be included. With the idea that patients may better tolerate interval training, our aim in this study was to investigate whether the application of a personalized exercise program in the form of interval and continuous aerobic training is superior to each other in increasing the exercise capacity and quality of life of the patient.
OBJECTIVE
This research compares the effects of interval and continuous aerobic training on people's quality of life and exercise capacity.
METHODS
The participants are diagnosed with coronary artery disease, aged between 40- 80, and have no mental or physical disability to join in the research. The participants" demographic info and clinical stories were recorded. We used the symptom-limited and six-minute walking tests (6DWT) to evaluate exercise capacity. We evaluate the quality of life by using Short Form-36 (SF-36). All evaluation tests are done before and after training. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: interval aerobic training (IAE) and continuous aerobic training (CAE). The training lasted three times a week for six weeks.
RESULTS
In both groups, significant changes were found in evaluation test scores after the rehabilitation program (p<0,05). However, only the IAE group had significant statistical differences compared to the CAE group regarding test time and 6DYT scores. After training, the CAE group showed significant statistical change in every SF-36 parameter, while the IAE group showed significant values except energy/fatigue (p<0,05). The IAE group has statistically significant changes compared to the CAE group on the parameters: physical function, role limitations due to physical function, role limitations due to emotional function, and general health (p<0,05).
CONCLUSIONS
Although both training methods benefitted cardiac rehabilitation, interval aerobic training was superior in some assessment parameters and was better tolerated than continuous aerobic training. For this reason, it was concluded that increasing patients' exertion capacity would be more helpful.
CLINICALTRIAL
clinical trails number of the article study retrieved from NCT06525233.
