Jiao Mingyue, Li Qingmei, Xie Xianzhi, Qiu Zhen
School of Teacher Education, Hezhou University, Hezhou, Guangxi, China.
School of Tourism and Sports Health, Hezhou University, Hezhou, Guangxi, China.
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Jul 8;12:1573100. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2025.1573100. eCollection 2025.
Several small randomized trials have examined the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) on hemostasis and vascular stiffness. However, a clear consensus regarding these effects has not been established. The study is to systematically review the evidence and quantify the impacts of HIIT compared with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) or usual care (UC) on hemostasis and vascular stiffness.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the impact of HIIT, MICT, or UC on hemostasis and vascular stiffness were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to June 10, 2025. A meta-analysis was performed to compare the standardized mean differences (SMD) of changes from baseline to post-intervention in platelet count (PLT), fibrinogen (FIB), D-dimer (D-D), carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV), augmentation index (AIx), AIx normalized to a heart rate of 75 beats·min (AIx@75HR), flow-mediated dilation (FMD), and brachial flow-mediated dilation normalized (nFMD), which were used to evaluate hemostasis and vascular stiffness. The 95% confidence interval (95% CI) was calculated along with the SMD. All analyses were conducted in R (version 4.3.3).
Overall, 68 RCTs involving 2,679 patients were included in the analysis. PLT [SMD (95% CI) = -0.26 (-0.51; -0.01)] and FIB [SMD (95% CI) = -0.60 (-1.18; -0.01)] in hemostasis were decreased. Decreased cfPWV [SMD (95% CI) = -0.22 (-0.38; -0.06)], AIx [SMD (95% CI) = -0.16 (-0.30; -0.02)], and AIx@75HR [SMD (95% CI) = -0.35 (-0.61; -0.10)], as well as increased FMD [SMD (95% CI) = 0.37 (0.02; 0.72)] were observed in vascular stiffness. However, there were no notable differences in the D-D and nFMD parameters.
HIIT notably improved FIB, cfPWV, AIx, and FMD compared to MICT, or UC. Under certain conditions, PLT and AIx@75HR can also benefit from HIIT. It may be particularly advantageous for patients with cardiovascular disease.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/522614, identifier CRD42024522614.
多项小型随机试验研究了高强度间歇训练（HIIT）对止血和血管僵硬度的影响。然而，关于这些影响尚未达成明确共识。本研究旨在系统回顾相关证据，并量化与中等强度持续训练（MICT）或常规护理（UC）相比，HIIT对止血和血管僵硬度的影响。
从PubMed、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库中检索截至2025年6月10日探索HIIT、MICT或UC对止血和血管僵硬度影响的随机对照试验（RCT）。进行荟萃分析以比较干预后相对于基线，血小板计数（PLT）、纤维蛋白原（FIB）、D-二聚体（D-D）、颈股脉搏波速度（cfPWV）、增强指数（AIx）、心率为75次·分钟时标准化的增强指数（AIx@75HR）、血流介导的血管舒张（FMD）以及肱动脉血流介导的血管舒张标准化值（nFMD）变化的标准化均数差（SMD），这些指标用于评估止血和血管僵硬度。计算95%置信区间（95%CI）以及SMD。所有分析均在R（版本4.3.3）中进行。
总体而言，分析纳入了68项涉及2679例患者的RCT。止血方面，PLT[SMD（95%CI）=-0.26（-0.51；-0.01）]和FIB[SMD（95%CI）=-0.60（-1.18；-0.01）]降低。血管僵硬度方面，cfPWV降低[SMD（95%CI）=-0.22（-0.38；-0.06）]，AIx降低[SMD（95%CI）=-0.16（-0.30；-0.02）]，AIx@75HR降低[SMD（95%CI）=-0.35（-0.61；-0.10）]，同时FMD升高[SMD（95%CI）=0.37（0.02；0.72）]。然而，D-D和nFMD参数无显著差异。
与MICT或UC相比，HIIT显著改善了FIB、cfPWV、AIx和FMD。在某些情况下，PLT和AIx@75HR也可从HIIT中获益。这可能对心血管疾病患者特别有益。
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/522614，标识符CRD42024522614。
