Impact of a high-intensity training on ventricular function in rats after acute myocardial infarction

Abstract

Background: Physical exercise should be part of the treatment of post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients. Objective: To evaluate the effects of two training prescription models (continuous x interval) and its impact on ventricular function in rats after AMI with normal ventricular function. Methods: Forty Wistar rats were evaluated by echocardiography 21 days after the AMI. Those with LVEF = 50% (n = 29) were included in the study and randomized to control group (CG n = 10), continuous training group (CTG n = 9) or interval training group (ITG, n = 10). Then, a swimming test with control of lactate production was performed. Based on its result, the lactate threshold (LT) was established to define the training intensities. After six weeks, the animals were reassessed by echocardiography and lactate production. Outcome measures were end-diastolic diameter (EDD), end-systolic diameter (ESD), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, %) lactate at rest, lactate without overload, and lactate with 12g and 13.5g of additional load. Group comparisons of quantitative variables of the study were performed by one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Newman-Keuls test was used for multiple comparisons of the groups. Within-group comparisons of dependent variables between the two training protocols were performed by Student’s t-test. Normality of the variables was tested by the Shapiro-Wilks test. Values of p < 0.05 indicated statistical significance. Results: EDD, ESD, and LVEF before and after the training period were similar in within-group comparisons. However, EDD was significantly different (p=0.008) in the CG. Significant differences were found for L12g (p=0.002) and L13.5g (p = 0.032) in the ITG, and for L12g (p = 0.014) in the CG. No differences were found in the echocardiographic parameters between the groups. Significant differences were found in lactate without overload (p = 0.016) and L12 (p = 0.031) in the second assessment compared with the first, and between the groups – ITG vs. CG (p = 0.019) and CTG vs. CG (p = 0.035). Conclusion: Both methods produced a training effect without altering ventricular function.