The effects of muscle strengthening training combined with aerobic training versus aerobic training alone on cardiovascular disease risk factors in coronary artery disease: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Aerobic training reduces the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). While the long-term effects of aerobic interval training (AIT) are less clear, AIT has been shown to elicit similar or superior improvements in risk factors associated with secondary cardiovascular events compared to continuous aerobic training. Current guidelines recommend performing muscle strengthening training in addition to aerobic training for enhanced cardiovascular care in patients with CAD. However, it remains unclear whether muscle strengthening training combined with aerobic training (hereafter referred to as combined training) has additional effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors in patients with CAD. It is also unknown if muscle strengthening training combined with AIT has greater effects on cardiovascular disease risk factors compared to AIT alone in patients with CAD. Purpose To systematically review the effects of combined training compared to aerobic training alone on cardiovascular disease risk factors in patients with CAD. The secondary purpose was to examine the effects muscle strengthening training combined with AIT on cardiovascular disease risk factors compared to AIT alone. Methods MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SportDiscus, Scopus, and trial registries were searched for randomized trials comparing the effects of ≥4 weeks of combined training and aerobic training alone on at least one of the following outcomes: cardiorespiratory fitness, body mass, body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, blood pressure, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, fasting glucose, glycated hemoglobin A1C (A1C), insulin concentration or sensitivity, in patients with CAD. Results Of 9336 studies screened, 16 studies (N=710 patients with CAD) were included. Combined training was more effective in increasing fat-free mass (mean difference [MD] = 0.8 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.4 to 1.1 kg, p<0.001) and reducing percent body fat (MD = -2.2 %, 95% CI: -3.6 to -0.8 %, p=0.002) measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry compared to aerobic training alone. Four of these 16 studies examined the effects of muscle strengthening training combined with AIT compared to AIT alone. There were no differences between the groups. Sensitivity analyses on studies with matched aerobic training volume between combined training and aerobic training alone (i.e., excluding studies with reduced aerobic training in the combined training group to add muscle strengthening training) showed consistent findings. Conclusion Adding muscle strengthening training to aerobic training improved the body composition of patients with CAD more than aerobic training alone. However, changes in the other cardiovascular disease risk factors were similar between combined and aerobic training alone.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,008 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».