4.5 Review

High-intensity interval training reduces blood pressure in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
Volume 158, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2021.111657

Keywords

Hypertension; Ambulatory blood pressure; Aerobic training; Physical activity; Adherence

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The systematic review and meta-analysis found that HIIT can reduce blood pressure in older adults, with statistically significant differences compared to the control group; however, there were no significant differences in blood pressure reductions between HIIT and MICT.
Background/objectives: The current systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) on blood pressure (BP) in older adults and compared the efficacy of HIIT versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT). Methods: Search was conducted using the databases at PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and EMBASE, for randomized trials comparing the chronic effects (>= 4 weeks) of HIIT versus MICT or control group (non-exercise) on BP in older adults (>= 60 years) with or without hypertension. Results: A total of 10 articles (n = 266 participants) were included in this meta-analysis. HIIT were associated with reductions in systolic BP (MD -7.36; 95%CI -11.80 to -2.92; P < 0.01; I-2 = 24%) and diastolic BP (MD -5.48; 95%CI -8.71 to -2.25; P < 0.01; I-2 = 40%) versus control group. No differences were found between HIIT and MICT in systolic BP (MD -2.09; 95%CI -9.76 to 5.58; P = 0.59; I-2 = 0%) and diastolic BP (MD -1.00; 95%CI -6.01 to 4.01; P = 0.69; I-2 = 0%). Conclusion: HIIT reduces BP in older adults. Additionally, HIIT and MICT provided comparable reductions on BP in this population.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available