The long-term effects of high-intensity interval training on functional capacity and quality of life in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, experience poor functional capacity and quality of life (QoL). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to elicit similar or greater short-term (i.e., 8-12 weeks) improvements in functional capacity and QoL compared with moderate-to-vigorous intensity continuous training (MICT) in cardiovascular disease populations including AF, yet the long-term effects remain understudied. Such evaluations are critical for informing long-term AF management. Purpose To compare the long-term effects of 12 weeks of HIIT- and MICT-based cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) on functional capacity and general QoL in patients with persistent and permanent AF. Methods This was a randomized clinical trial in patients with persistent and permanent AF. Functional capacity was measured using a 6-minute walk test (6MWT); a suggested minimal clinically important difference for the 6MWT is a change of 54 metres. General QoL was assessed using the Short Form-36 (SF-36); the suggested minimal clinically important difference for the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores is a change of at least 5 points. A linear mixed-effects model with repeated measures over time (i.e., baseline, week 12, week 26, 1 year, and 2 year) were performed to examine the main effects for time, group, and time by group interactions. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Data are presented as means and standard deviations. Results This study included 86 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [8] years; 57 [66.3%] men). A significant group by time interaction (F = 4.9, p < 0.001) was observed, with a decrease in 6MWT distance in the MICT group after 2 years when compared to week 26 (p = 0.04, mean difference [MD] = -20.4 m) and week 12 (p = 0.01, MD = -26.5 m) follow-up. Regardless of the group, PCS scores increased (Time F = 16.0, p < 0.001) at week 26 when compared to baseline (p = 0.01, MD = 3.7 pts), as well as year 1 compared to week 26 (p = 0.01, MD = 14.0 pts) and week 12 (p < 0.001, MD = 16.5 pts). Yet, PCS scores decreased after 2 years when compared to year 1 (p < 0.001, MD = -24.0 pts) and week 26 (p = 0.01, MD = -10.0 pts). The MCS scores also decreased (Time F = 6.8, p < 0.001) after 2 years when compared to week 12 (p = 0.01, MD = -14.8 pts) Conclusion Our findings indicate that HIIT-based CR led to a statistically greater functional capacity sustainability over a 2-year period, with mean changes not reaching clinical significance. Both HIIT- and MICT-based CR programs led to similar QoL sustainability, with an increase in year 1 (PCS only) followed by a decline in year 2 (PCS and MCS).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".