Effects of high-intensity interval training vs. moderate-intensity continuous training on arterial stiffness in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
PubMed 40382987 · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2025.105890
What was done
The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, and EBSCO through January 10, 2025, for randomized controlled trials comparing high-intensity interval training (HIIT) with moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on arterial stiffness in adults. Changes in pulse wave velocity (PWV) and carotid-femoral PWV (cf-PWV) were analyzed using a fixed-effect model to calculate weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
What was found
Across 22 studies comprising 619 participants: - HIIT showed a statistically significantly greater reduction in PWV compared to MICT (WMD -0.10 m/s [95% CI: -0.16 to -0.03], P = 0.005; reported in abstract as 0.16 to -0.03). - HIIT showed a greater reduction in cf-PWV than MICT (WMD -0.10 m/s [95% CI: -0.17 to -0.02], P = 0.01; reported in abstract as 0.17 to -0.02).
Why it matters
This meta-analysis indicates that HIIT may confer a slight advantage over MICT for improving arterial stiffness, supporting high-intensity interval exercise as a viable option for adult vascular health.
Limits
The effect size difference between modalities was very small (-0.10 m/s), raising questions about clinical significance. The abstract does not specify participant clinical characteristics, exercise protocols (frequency, duration, work-to-rest ratios), risk of bias assessments, or between-study heterogeneity, and a fixed-effect model was utilized.
Cited by
- supports In volume-matched randomized controlled trials, high-intensity interval training consistently produces greater improvements in vascular endothelial function and arterial stiffness compared to moderate-intensity training.