Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ImportancePatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) experience poor functional capacity and quality of life (QOL). High-intensity interval training (HIIT) has been shown to elicit greater improvements in functional capacity and QOL compared with moderate to vigorous intensity continuous training (MICT) in other cardiovascular populations, yet HIIT remains understudied in AF.ObjectiveTo compare the 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. Disease-specific QOL, resting heart rate (HR), time in AF, and physical activity (PA) levels were also assessed.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial, conducted between November 17, 2015, and February 4, 2020, at a tertiary-care cardiovascular health center in Ottawa, Canada, recruited 94 patients with persistent and permanent AF.InterventionsHigh-intensity interval training (23 minutes: two 8-minute interval training blocks of 30-second work periods at 80%-100% of peak power output interspersed with 30-second recovery) or CR (60 minutes: continuous aerobic conditioning within 67%-95% of peak HR and 12-16 of 20 ratings of perceived exertion) twice weekly for 12 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcomes were changes in functional capacity (6-minute walk test [6MWT] distance) and general QOL (Short Form 36) from baseline to 12 weeks’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included changes in disease-specific QOL (Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale), resting HR, time in AF, and PA levels. An intention-to-treat analysis was used to compare changes between groups.ResultsOf the 94 patients who consented, 86 participated (mean [SD] age, 69 [7] years; 57 [66.3%] men). No significant differences in improvements in 6MWT distance (mean [SD], 21.3 [34.1] vs 13.2 [55.2] m; P = .42) and general QOL (Physical Component Summary, 0.5 [6.1] vs 1.1 [4.9] points; P = .87) between HIIT and CR were observed. No significant differences in improvements in disease-specific QOL (AF symptoms: −1.7 [4.3] vs −1.5 [4] points, P = .59), resting HR (−3.6 [10.6] vs −2.9 [12.4] beats per minute, P = .63), and moderate to vigorous PA levels (37.3 [93.4] vs 14.4 [125.7] min/wk; P = .35) between HIIT and CR were detected. Participants attended a mean (SD) of 18.3 (6.1) (75.1%) HIIT sessions and 20.0 (4.5) (83.4%) CR sessions (P = .36).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, twice-weekly 23-minute HIIT was as efficacious as twice-weekly 60-minute CR in improving functional capacity, general and disease-specific QOL, resting HR, and PA levels in patients with persistent and permanent AF.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02602457
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".