Les effets d’une périodisation non-linéaire de l’entrainement aérobie sur les réponses cardiopulmonaires à l’exercice et la fonction cardiaque au repos chez des patients atteints de la maladie coronarienne

Guidelines on exercise training in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD)suggest that an exercise training program with should combine moderate-intensity continuous (MICT) with a high-intensity interval (HIIT) training, with a constant progressive and structured increase of the training load (linear periodization [LP]) in the course of the program. As opposed to the LP, non-linear periodization (NLP) is characterized by greater increase of the training load intercepted by one training week with a lighter training load. NLP is used in athletes to bring variation in the training load, optimize training adaptation, avoid a plateau, monotony, and over-reaching. In healthy and individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, NLP showed greater improvement in aerobic endurance. Our main objective was to compare the NLP with the LP protocol on the cardiopulmonary exercise response in patients with CHD. Then, we compared the cardiac adaptation of the left ventricle (LV) between both aerobic training periodization. We hypothesized that NLP will be superior for improving cardiorespiratory parameters compared to LP. We recruited 39 patients with stable CHD from the Montreal Heart Institute, between 2016 and 2018. All completed a maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) with gas exchange measurements and a resting cardiac echography before and after the training intervention. The CPET measurements included peak oxygen uptake (peak V̇O2), oxygen uptake efficiency slope (OUES), minute ventilation (V̇E), ventilatory efficiency slope (V̇E/V̇CO2 slope), oxygen uptake at the first (VT1) and second (VT2) ventilatory thresholds, and oxygen pulse (O2pulse). We also assessed the proportion of non, low, and high responders between both aerobic training periodization using the median of the delta peak V̇O2. The cardiac function measurements included the systolic and the diastolic functions, and the myocardial strain and strain rates in the LV. Exercise training protocols included 3 sessions/week, for 30 to 60 minutes/session, combining a periodized HIIT and MICT, and a non-periodized resistance training. Weekly energy expenditure was constantly increased in the LP group for the aerobic training, while it was increased and intercepted with a lighter training load week each fourth week in the NLP group. VI We observed a similar improvement in both groups for peak V̇O2, OUES, VT1, VT2, O2pulse, 3-dimensional LV ejection fraction, radial strain and radial strain rates, (interaction time*group : p>0.05 ; time effect : p<0.05 with a superior effect size in the LP group). Proportion of high responders was similar between groups (p=0.29). Our results suggest that incorporating more training load variation does not bring more training adaptation in an exercise training program in patients with stable CHD. Despite it is not a direct comparison, another study showed a proportion of 37% of non-responders after a non-periodized training program in 1,171 patients with CHD, compared to 60 and 47% in the LP and NLP from our study, respectively. More studies are needed to examine if training periodization could lead to an increased training response and could be integrated in cardiac rehabilitation programs.

Keyphrases: Aerobic exercise training, Linear and non-linear periodization, Cardiorespiratory fitness, Training response, Cardiac remodeling, Myocardial strain, Coronary disease, Secondary prevention