| Full text | |
| Author(s): |
Marcal, Isabela Roque
[1, 2]
;
Goessler, Karla Fabiana
[3]
;
Buys, Roselien
[2]
;
Casonatto, Juliano
[4]
;
Ciolac, Emmanuel Gomes
[1]
;
Cornelissen, Veronique A.
[2]
Total Authors: 6
|
| Affiliation: | [1] Sao Paulo State Univ UNESP, Sch Sci, Dept Phys Educ, Exercise & Chron Dis Res Lab, Bauru, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Leuven, Dept Rehabil Sci, Res Grp Cardiovasc Rehabil, KU Leuven, Leuven - Belgium
[3] Univ Sao Paulo, Sch Phys Educ & Sport, Fac Med FMUSP, Appl Physiol & Nutr Res Grp, Sao Paulo - Brazil
[4] Univ Northern Parana, Res Grp Physiol & Phys Act, Londrina, Parana - Brazil
Total Affiliations: 4
|
| Document type: | Review article |
| Source: | FRONTIERS IN PHYSIOLOGY; v. 12, JUN 28 2021. |
| Web of Science Citations: | 0 |
| Abstract | |
Background: Post-exercise hypotension (PEH) is an important tool in the daily management of patients with hypertension. Varying the exercise parameters is likely to change the blood pressure (BP) response following a bout of exercise. In recent years, high-intensity interval exercise (HIIE) has gained significant popularity in exercise-based prevention and rehabilitation of clinical populations. Yet, to date, it is not known whether a single session of HIIE maximizes PEH more than a bout of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (MICE). Objective: To compare the effect of HIIE vs. MICE on PEH by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search in the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and SPORTDiscus was conducted from the earliest date available until February 24, 2020. Randomized clinical trials comparing the transient effect of a single bout of HIIE to MICE on office and/or ambulatory BP in humans (>= 18 years) were included. Data were pooled using random effects models with summary data reported as weighted means and 95% confidence interval (CIs). Results: Data from 14 trials were included, involving 18 comparisons between HIIE and MICE and 276 (193 males) participants. The immediate effects, measured as office BP at 30- and 60-min post-exercise, was similar for a bout of HIIE and MICE (p > 0.05 for systolic and diastolic BP). However, HIIE elicited a more pronounced BP reduction than MICE {[}(-5.3 mmHg (-7.3 to -3.3)/ -1.63 mmHg (-3.00 to -0.26)] during the subsequent hours of ambulatory daytime monitoring. No differences were observed for ambulatory nighttime BP (p > 0.05). Conclusion: HIIE promoted a larger PEH than MICE on ambulatory daytime BP. However, the number of studies was low, patients were mostly young to middle-aged individuals, and only a few studies included patients with hypertension. Therefore, there is a need for studies that involve older individuals with hypertension and use ambulatory BP monitoring to confirm HIIE's superiority as a safe BP lowering intervention in today's clinical practice. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020171640). (AU) | |
| FAPESP's process: | 19/18039-7 - Reducing sedentary time in bariatric patients: a randomized controlled trial |
| Grantee: | Karla Fabiana Goessler |
| Support Opportunities: | Scholarships in Brazil - Post-Doctoral |