High-intensity interval training versus moderate-intensity continuous training for COPD: a systematics review and meta-analysis.
Irem Suzen, Aynur Demirel
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) for exercise capacity, lung function, and muscle performance in people with COPD. Twelve studies involving 401 participants, mostly with moderate or severe COPD, were included. HIIT was not significantly superior for lung function; MICT performed better for VO₂ peak, while HIIT improved 6-minute walk distance by 14.63 m (95% CI [1.00, 28.25], p = .04). The review also reported greater benefits with HIIT for several measures of muscle function.
Key findings
- For FEV₁, the combined mean difference was 6.84 (95% CI: -1.59 to 15.28; p = .11), with no significant HIIT advantage.
- MICT showed superiority for VO₂ peak (MD = -41.79 mL/min, 95% CI [-74.77, -8.81], p = .01; I² = 39%, p = .12).
- HIIT improved 6MWT performance (MD = 14.63 m, 95% CI [1.00, 28.25], p = .04; I² = 33%, p = .22); no significant difference was found for 12MWT.
- HIIT provided greater benefits for reported muscle-function measures, including respiratory pressure, quadriceps endurance, handgrip strength, and muscle fiber composition.
Why it matters
The findings suggest that training modality may influence which rehabilitation outcomes improve: MICT was favored for VO₂ peak, whereas HIIT showed benefits for 6-minute walk performance and several muscle measures. Lung-function outcomes were comparable. These distinctions can inform interpretation of exercise-training evidence, while the review’s call for further research underscores uncertainty about optimal HIIT protocols.
What to keep in mind
The review included only 12 studies and 401 participants, and the abstract notes that further research is needed to determine optimal training protocols.