A case series of acute responses to high-intensity interval training in four males with permanent atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a serious medical condition and a burgeoning patient population. Chronic exercise training, including high-intensity interval training (HIIT), has been shown to improve symptoms and quality of life in patients with AF. Yet, the acute responses to HIIT in this population remain understudied, leaving clinicians and patients hesitant about prescribing and engaging in high-intensity exercise, respectively. Case summary: This case series describes acute exercise responses [i.e. power output, heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), ratings of perceived exertion (RPE), symptoms] to 10 weeks (3 days/week) of HIIT. Participants were four white males (58-80 years old) with permanent AF, co-morbidities (diabetes, coronary artery disease, Parkinson's disease), and physical limitations. The increases in HR and BP during HIIT were modest across all participants, regardless of age and medication use. Differences in RPE were observed; the oldest participant perceived the sessions as more challenging despite a lower HR response. All patients complied with the HIIT prescription of 80-100% of peak power output by week 4. No adverse events were reported. Discussion: Patients' concerns regarding high-intensity exercise may discourage them from participating in HIIT, our results demonstrated no abnormal HR or BP (e.g. hypotension) responses during HIIT or cool-down. These findings align with the typical exercise responses noted in other cardiovascular populations. Notwithstanding the high metabolic demands of HIIT, male patients with permanent AF tolerated HIIT without problem. Further investigation of HIIT as an approach to enable those with AF to recover physical capacity and minimize symptomatology is warranted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".