Journal of cardiopulmonary rehabilitation and prevention · 2026
Hemodynamic Response During Different Modalities of Resistance Training in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Schmidt Thomas, Mirti Elisa, Predel Hans-Georg, Bjarnason-Wehrens Birna, Mazzoli-Rocha Flavia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Resistance training (RT) can improve the quality of life and cardiovascular function in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). Its clinical application, however, remains limited by heterogeneous training protocols and insufficiently understood acute hemodynamic responses. This systematic review, therefore, aimed to investigate the hemodynamic response during different modalities of RT in patients with CVD.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials Register was conducted. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, comparing the hemodynamic response between different modalities of RT in adults (≥18 years) with CVD, were included. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the change from baseline (Δ) in heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) to low-intensity with longer-duration RT (low longer) versus high-intensity with shorter-duration RT (high shorter).
SUMMARY: The 8 included studies, which comprised 182 patients with CVD, especially heart failure and coronary artery disease, reported that RT was safe and observed an increase in HR and SBP during RT relative to baseline, independent of the modality used. The meta-analysis performed for HR (mean difference = 1.23: 95% CI, -2.97 to 5.43 beats/min; P = .5651) and SBP (mean difference = 12.57: 95% CI, -6.83 to 31.98 mm Hg; P = .2040) indicated no statistically significant difference between the low-longer and high-shorter modalities. This systematic review underscores that, despite limited evidence, dynamic RT elicits a predictable and safe increase in HR and SBP in patients with CVD, particularly those with heart failure and coronary artery disease.
REVIEW METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Trials Register was conducted. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, comparing the hemodynamic response between different modalities of RT in adults (≥18 years) with CVD, were included. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the change from baseline (Δ) in heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) to low-intensity with longer-duration RT (low longer) versus high-intensity with shorter-duration RT (high shorter).
SUMMARY: The 8 included studies, which comprised 182 patients with CVD, especially heart failure and coronary artery disease, reported that RT was safe and observed an increase in HR and SBP during RT relative to baseline, independent of the modality used. The meta-analysis performed for HR (mean difference = 1.23: 95% CI, -2.97 to 5.43 beats/min; P = .5651) and SBP (mean difference = 12.57: 95% CI, -6.83 to 31.98 mm Hg; P = .2040) indicated no statistically significant difference between the low-longer and high-shorter modalities. This systematic review underscores that, despite limited evidence, dynamic RT elicits a predictable and safe increase in HR and SBP in patients with CVD, particularly those with heart failure and coronary artery disease.