Department of Physiotherapy, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia.
J Physiother. 2012;58(2):129. doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(12)70095-4.
To review the evidence as to whether combined aerobic and resistance training is as effective as aerobic training at improving body composition, fitness, strength and quality of life in people with coronary artery disease.
Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Embase, Medline, PreMedline, SportDiscus and CINAHL, searched up to October 2009. This search was supplemented by citation tracking.
Randomised controlled trials involving people with coronary artery disease (including people who had undergone coronary artery surgery or percutaneous intervention) in which aerobic training was compared to combined aerobic and resistance training. Outcome measures were measures of cardiovascular fitness, body composition measured by dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, muscular strength, healthrelated quality of life and self efficacy. Trials involving only patients with heart failure were excluded.
Two reviewers determined eligibility and one reviewer extracted data. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale and the Jadad scale.
Of 271 studies initially identified by the search, 12 studies with a total of 504 patients met the selection criteria and were included in the review. Study quality ranged from 4 to 8 out of 10 on the PEDro scale, and 2 to 3 out of 5 on the Jadad scale. Based on the quantitative pooling of the available data from these trials, the combined training induced significantly greater improvements than aerobic training on most outcomes. Peak exercise capacity was better by a standardised mean difference of 0.88 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.31), fat free mass improved by 0.9kg more (95% CI 0.4 to 1.4) and percent body fat improved by 2% more (95% CI 1 to 4). Trunk fat and upper and lower limb strength were also significantly better after combined training than after aerobic training. Data for quality of life and self efficacy could not be pooled quantitatively, but all the studies that measured these outcomes reported improvements either in both groups or in the combined training group only. The adverse events noted were typically mild cardiovascular changes or musculoskeletal pain. In subgroup analyses, the study duration and the intensity of the resistance were not associated with an altered treatment effect.
Combined aerobic and resistance training is more effective than aerobic training in improving body composition, strength and cardiovascular fitness, probably improving quality of life and self efficacy as well.
回顾有氧和抗阻联合训练与单纯有氧训练相比,在改善冠心病患者身体成分、体适能、力量和生活质量方面的效果证据。
Cochrane 对照试验注册库、Embase、Medline、PreMedline、SportDiscus 和 CINAHL,检索时间截至 2009 年 10 月。此外还进行了引文追踪。
纳入涉及冠心病患者(包括接受过冠状动脉手术或经皮介入治疗的患者)的随机对照试验,比较了有氧训练与有氧和抗阻联合训练。结局指标为心血管适能、双能 X 射线吸收法测量的身体成分、肌肉力量、健康相关生活质量和自我效能。仅纳入了伴有心力衰竭患者的试验。
两名评审员确定入选标准,一名评审员提取数据。采用 PEDro 量表和 Jadad 量表评估方法学质量。
最初通过检索共确定了 271 项研究,其中 12 项研究(共 504 例患者)符合入选标准并纳入本综述。研究质量在 PEDro 量表上评分为 4 至 10 分(总分 10 分),在 Jadad 量表上评分为 2 至 5 分(总分 5 分)。基于这些试验中可用数据的定量汇总,联合训练在大多数结局上比单纯有氧训练引起的改善更显著。峰值运动能力的改善程度用标准化均数差值表示为 0.88(95%CI 0.45 至 1.31),无脂肪质量增加 0.9kg 以上(95%CI 0.4 至 1.4),体脂百分比降低 2%以上(95%CI 1 至 4)。联合训练后躯干脂肪、上下肢力量也明显改善。生活质量和自我效能的数据无法进行定量汇总,但所有测量这些结局的研究均报告两组均有改善,或仅在联合训练组有改善。注意到的不良事件通常是轻微的心血管变化或肌肉骨骼疼痛。亚组分析显示,研究持续时间和抗阻强度与治疗效果改变无关。
与单纯有氧训练相比,有氧和抗阻联合训练在改善身体成分、力量和心血管适能方面更有效,可能还改善了生活质量和自我效能。