Left ventricular function during interval and steady state exercise.

PURPOSE: Interval training (INT) is a commonly used method of exercise training in both athletic and clinical populations. Although we generally understand left ventricular (LV) function during steady state (SS) exercise, there are no data regarding LV function during INT. METHODS: We studied eight healthy, physically active volunteers during upright cycle ergometry during 15 min of both SS and INT, at the same average power output (90% individual anaerobic threshold), using first pass radionuclide ventriculography. During INT (60s/60s), measures of LV function were made during work (220 W) after 4 and 12 min and during recovery (120 W) after 7 and 15 min. These were compared with the average of four temporally matched measures made during SS (170 W). RESULTS: During INT, LV ejection fraction increased from rest (67 +/- 6%) to 77 +/- 5, 80 +/- 5, 77 +/- 5 and 79 +/- 4% after 4, 7, 12, and 15 min, respectively. During SS, LV ejection fraction was not significantly different at rest (70 +/- 4%) or during exercise (76 +/- 4, 79 +/- 4, 80 +/- 3, and 81 +/- 3%) after 4, 7, 12, and 15 min, respectively. Other measures of LV function (HR, BP, LV volumes, cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance, peak emptying, and filling rates) were likewise similar during temporally matched measurements during INT and SS. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were the expected transitions of ejection fraction with work and recovery, the overall hemodynamic picture during INT was very similar to SS. These data suggest that LV function during INT is not substantially different to that during SS.

Comparison of left ventricular function during interval versus steady-state exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure.

This study sought to assess the safety of interval exercise training in patients with chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) with respect to left ventricular (LV) function. For effective rehabilitation in CHF, both aerobic capacity and muscle strength need to be improved. We have previously demonstrated in both coronary artery bypass surgery and patients with CHF that interval exercise training (IET) offers advantages over steady-state exercise training (SSET). However, because LV function during IET has not yet been studied, the safety of this method in CHF remains unclear. To assess LV function during IET and SSET, at the same average power output, 11 patients with stable CHF were compared with 9 stable coronary patients with minimal LV dysfunction (control group). Using first-pass radionuclide ventriculography, changes in LV function were assessed during work versus recovery phases, at temporally matched times between the fifth and sixteenth minute of IET and SSET. In CHF during IET, there were no significant variations in the parameters measured during work and/or recovery phases. During the course of both IET and SSET, there was a significant increase in LV ejection fraction (5 vs 4 U; p <0.05 each), accompanied by increased heart rate (6 vs 8 beats/min; p <0.05 each) and cardiac output (2.4 vs 1.8 L/min; p <0.01 and p <0.05). In CHF, the magnitude of change in LV ejection fraction during IET was similar to that seen in controls. Both LV ejection fraction and the clinical status in patients with CHF remained stable during IET. Because IET appears to be as safe as SSET with respect to LV function, IET can be recommended for exercise training in CHF to apply higher peripheral exercise stimuli and with no greater LV stress than during SSET.