Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Sports Med. 2018 Sep;48(9):2127-2142. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0944-y.

Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training Versus Moderate-Intensity Continuous Training On Blood Pressure in Adults with Pre- to Established Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Author information

1
Department of Physical Education, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, RN, Brazil. ecc@ufrnet.br.
2
Health, Leisure & Human Performance Research Institute, Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
3
Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, St-Boniface Hospital Albrechtsen Research Centre, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
4
National Institute of Science and Technology for Health Technology Assessment (IATS)-CNPq, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
5
University of Manitoba Libraries, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Aerobic exercise reduces blood pressure (BP), but it is unknown whether a high-intensity training approach can elicit a greater BP reduction in populations with elevated BP. This systematic review compared the efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for reducing BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension.

METHODS:

Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, and SPORTDiscus) were searched for randomized trials comparing the chronic effects of HIIT versus MICT on BP in individuals with resting systolic BP ≥ 130 mmHg and/or diastolic BP ≥ 85 mmHg and/or under antihypertensive medication. Random-effects modelling was used to compare changes from pre- to post-intervention in resting and ambulatory BP between HIIT and MICT. Changes from pre- to post-intervention in maximal oxygen uptake ([Formula: see text]O2max) between HIIT and MICT were also meta-analyzed. Data were reported as weighted mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS:

Ambulatory BP was excluded from the meta-analysis due to the limited number of studies (two studies). Comparing changes from pre- to post-intervention, no differences in resting systolic BP (MD - 0.22 mmHg [CI 95%, - 5.36 to 4.92], p = 0.93, I2 = 53%) and diastolic BP (MD - 0.38 mmHg [CI 95%, - 3.31 to 2.54], p = 0.74, I2 = 0%) were found between HIIT and MICT (seven studies; 164 participants). HIIT improved [Formula: see text]O2max to a greater magnitude than MICT (MD 2.13 ml/kg/min [CI 95%, 1.00 to 3.27], p < 0.01, I2 = 41%) with similar completion rates of the intervention and attendance at the exercise training sessions (nine studies; 245 participants). Limited data were available to compare the incidence of adverse events between HIIT and MICT.

CONCLUSION:

HIIT and MICT provided comparable reductions in resting BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension. HIIT was associated with greater improvements in [Formula: see text]O2max when compared to MICT. Future randomized trials should investigate the efficacy of HIIT versus MICT for reducing ambulatory BP in adults with pre- to established hypertension.

REGISTRATION:

PROSPERO registration (2016: CRD42016041885).

PMID:
29949110
DOI:
10.1007/s40279-018-0944-y
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center