Evidence Hub

Superior Effects of High-Intensity Interval Training vs. Moderate Continuous Training on Arterial Stiffness in Episodic Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

H. Hanssen, Alice Minghetti, S. Magon, A. Rossmeissl, A. Papadopoulou, Christopher Klenk, A. Schmidt-Trucksäss, O. Faude et al.

Frontiers in Physiology, 2017

37 participants · 36 citations

Abstract

Background: Migraine is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and vascular dysfunction. Since aerobic exercise can reduce cardiovascular risk, the present randomized controlled trail aimed at investigating the effects of high-intensity interval training (HIT) vs. moderate continuous exercise training (MCT) on arterial stiffness in migraine patients. Methods: Forty-eight episodic migraineurs were initially enrolled in the study. 37 patients [female: 30; age: 37 (SD: 10); BMI: 23.1 (5.2); Migraine days per month: 3.7 (2.5)] completed the intervention. Central blood pressure, pulse wave reflection, and aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) were obtained by an oscillometric monitor. Incremental treadmill exercise testing yielded maximal and submaximal fitness parameters. Participants were randomly assigned to either HIT, MCT, or a control group (CON). The intervention groups trained twice a week over a 12-week intervention period. Results: After adjustment for between-group baseline differences, a moderate meaningful overall reduction of the augmentation index at 75 min−1 heart rate (AIx@75) was observed [partial eta squared (ηp2) = 0.16; p = 0.06]. With 91% likely beneficial effects, HIT was more effective in reducing AIx@75 than MCT [HIT: pre 22.0 (9.7), post 14.9 (13.0), standardized mean difference (SMD) = 0.62; MCT: pre 16.6 (8.5), post 21.3 (10.4), SMD −0.49]. HIT induced a relevant reduction in central systolic blood pressure [cSBP: pre 118 (23) mmHg, post 110 (16)…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 37 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free