Skip to content

Interval Aerobic Training and Continious Training

Comparision the Effect of Interval Aerobic Training and Continious Training on Coronary Artery Disease

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT06525233
Enrollment
40
Registered
2024-07-29
Start date
2018-05-05
Completion date
2019-05-20
Last updated
2024-07-29

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Coronary Artery Disease, Exercise Addiction

Keywords

continious training, interval training

Brief summary

This research is comparing the effects of interval and continuous training which are the two types of aerobic training on persons' life quality and exercise capacity on coronary artery disease patients.

Detailed description

The participants are diagnosed coronary artery disease aged between 40- 80 and have no mental and physical disability to take part in research. The participants' demographic infos and clinical story were recorded. To evaluate exercise capacity we used the symptom-limited exercise test (ETT) and six minute walking test (6DYT). We evaluate the life quality by using Short Form-36 (SF-36). All those evaluation tests are done before and after training. Participants are randomly divided into two groups, the first group took part in interval aerobic training (AAE) while the other group was joining in continuous training (SAE) three times a week during 6 weeks. In both groups, significant changes were found in ETT, test time and 6 DYT scores after the rehabilitation program (p\<0,05). But only AAE group have important statistical values comparing to SAE group on test time and 6DYT scores. After training SAE group showed significant statistical change in every SF-36 parameter, while AAE group showing significant values except energy/fatigue. AAE group have statistically significant changes comparing to SAE group on that parameters; physical function, role limitations due to physical function, role limitations due to emotional function and general health (p\<0,05). Consequently AAE is much more tolerable comparing to SAE and AAE is considered more effective in increasing some parameters. On the other hand, we observed that both training types can be used in cardiac rehabilitation safely.

Interventions

OTHERPhysiotherapy and rehabilitation

The aerobic exercise is very crucial part of cardiac rehabilitation. This study compares the effects of interval and continuous training which are the two types of aerobic training on persons' life quality and exercise capacity diagnosed coronary artery disease patients.

Sponsors

Istanbul Medipol University Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
CASE_CROSSOVER
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
40 Years to 80 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* diagnosed coronary artery disease * aged between 40-80 * over %55 ejection fraction

Exclusion criteria

* mental and physical disability * unstable angina pectoris * thrombophlebitis

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
the effect of intermittent and continuous aerobic exercise on exercise capacity30 minutes 3 times a week during 6 weekswe used the symptom-limited exercise test and six minute walking test (6DYT). All evaluation tests are done before and after training. Participants were into randomised two groups: interval aerobic training (AAE) and continuous aerobic training (SAE). Training lasted three times a week during 6 weeks. In both groups, significant changes were found in evaluation tests scores after the rehabilitation program (p\<0,05). But only AAE group have important statistical difference comparing to SAE group on test time and 6DYT scores.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
the effect of intermittent and continuous aerobic exercise on life quality30 minutes 3 times a week during 6 weeksThe participants have no mental and physical disability to join in research. The participants' demographic infos and clinical story were recorded.We evaluate the life quality by using Short Form-36 (SF-36). All evaluation tests are done before and after training. Participants were into randomised two groups: interval aerobic training (AAE) and continuous aerobic training (SAE).After training SAE group showed significant statistical change in every SF-36 parameter, while AAE group showing significant values except energy/fatigue. AAE group have statistically significant changes comparing to SAE group on that parameters; physical function, role limitations due to physical function, role limitations due to emotional function and general health (p\<0,05). Consequently AAE is much more tolerable comparing to SAE and AAE is considered more effective in increasing some parameters. On the other hand, we observed that both training types can be used in cardiac rehabilitation safely.

Countries

Turkey (Türkiye)

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026