HRV-guided training vs traditional HIIT training in cardiac rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial

High-intensity interval training is the gold standard for cardiac rehabilitation although current revascularization therapy focuses on the recovery of autonomic nervous system balance through heart rate variability (HRV). The main objective was to analyze the effect of HRV-guided training versus high-intensity interval training on cardiorespiratory fitness, heart rate variability, quality of life, and training volume at high intensity, as well as exercise adherence, safety, and feasibility in ischemic patients. This is an 8-week cluster randomized controlled trial with an HRV-based training group (HRV-G) and a traditional HIIT group (HIIT-G). Maximal oxygen consumption, heart rate, and blood pressure were measured during the Bruce protocol treadmill test. HRV was measured with the HRV4Training application, and quality of life with the MacNew QLMI. The repeated measures ANCOVA was used with the age and the baseline scores as covariables. Forty-six patients (mean age 55 ± 11.03 years) were randomized and assigned either to HRV-G (n = 23) or HIIT-G (n = 23). Both groups improved maximal oxygen consumption and METS (P > .05). However, the resting systolic blood pressure was lower in HRV-G (4.3 ± 1.2 mmHg, P = .05). In HRV-G, the resting diastolic, maximal diastolic, and systolic blood pressure decreased (5.4 ± 5.96 mmHg, P = .007; 11.4 ± 12.46 mmHg, P = .005; and 5 ± 5.98 mmHg, P = .013, respectively) whereas the recovery heart rate increased significantly (-21.5 ± 23.16 beats/min, P = .003). The LnrMSSDcv ([LnrMSSD_SD/LnrMSSD_MEAN] × 100) was lower in HRV-G (1.23 ± 0.91 mmHg, P = .03) while the training volume at high intensity was higher in HIIT-G (31.4 ± 29.2 min, P = .024). HRV-guided training presents a better cardioprotective effect than HIIT-G at a lower high-intensity training volume.