Informace o publikaci
Comparing Aerobic Interval Training with Other Forms of Physical Exercise for Brachial Artery Endothelial Function Improvement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
| Autoři | |
|---|---|
| Rok publikování | 2025 |
| Druh | Článek v odborném periodiku |
| Časopis / Zdroj | Sports Medicine-Open |
| Fakulta / Pracoviště MU | |
| Citace | |
| www | https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12638609/pdf/40798_2025_Article_929.pdf |
| Doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-025-00929-3. |
| Klíčová slova | aerobic exercise; aerobic interval training; blood flow restriction training; body movement; brachial artery; brachial artery endothelial function improvement; dynamic resistance training |
| Popis | Background Brachial artery endothelial function, measured by the flow-mediated dilatation (FMD) technique, serves as a surrogate for coronary endothelial function and is recognized as an independent predictor of cardiovascular disease risk. Despite the known benefits of physical exercise interventions (PEI) in improving endothelial function, limited evidence exists to guide practitioners on the most effective form of PEI for enhancing endothelial function. The aim of this article is to investigate the effects of different PEI modalities on brachial artery FMD, and to establish the most effective PEI through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods PubMed, WoS, CINAHL, EMBASE, CENTRAL and EBSCOhost search was conducted from inception to February 20th, 2025. Randomized controlled studies investigating the effects of PEI on brachial artery FMD in adults were included. Both pairwise and Bayesian NMA were conducted using random-effects model to compare different PEI modalities within primary (aerobic training, resistance training and combined training) and secondary (continuous aerobic training vs. interval aerobic training vs. dynamic resistance training vs. combined training) categorizations. The PEI effectiveness was ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Results In total, 84 studies with 3596 participants (43% females, 51.9±15.1 years of age) were included in the analysis. Summarized evidence of 119 effect sizes through pairwise comparisons showed improvement in FMD (mean difference [MD], 2.24%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.90–2.58, p<0.001) following different PEI, without difference between magnitude of the effect between healthy and asymptomatic individuals (Q, 1.27, p=0.260). As shown in the NMA, the rank order within a primary classification showed aerobic training as the most effective (SUCRA: 89.8%, MD, 2.37%, 95% credible interval [CrI] 1.95–2.80) followed by resistance training (SUCRA: 66.0%, MD, 2.07%, 95% CrI, |