Skip to main content

Table 2 Feasibility Outcomes

From: The feasibility of implementing high-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation settings: a retrospective analysis

 

All

N = 151

Women

N = 50

Men

N = 101

P value (sex differences)

Attendance and Compliance

 Classes Attendeda

16 ± 5

15 ± 6

16 ± 5

0.106

 Attended ≥70% of classesa

103 (73)

34 (69)

69 (75)

0.474

 Dropoutsa

17 (11)

10 (20)

7 (7)

0.034*b

Compliance to HI HRa

0.931

 Does not comply

28 (20)

10 (19)

18 (20)

 

 Complies

76 (53)

25 (52)

51 (54)

 

 Exceeds

36 (27)

13 (29)

23 (26)

 

Compliance to HI RPEa

0.287

 Does not comply

88 (58)

23 (58)

65 (66)

 

 Complies

43 (29)

16 (40)

27 (28)

 

 Exceeds

 

Compliance to LO HRa

0.825

 Does not comply

24 (16)

9 (17)

15 (16)

 

 Complies

58 (42)

21 (42)

37 (41)

 

 Exceeds

57 (42)

18 (40)

39 (43)

 

Compliance to LO RPEa

0.571

 Does not comply

83 (61)

25 (66)

58 (59)

 

 Complies

43 (32)

12 (30)

31 (32)

 

 Exceeds

3 (2)

3 (2)

 

Patient Experience

 RPE HIa

14 ± 2

14 ± 2

14 ± 1

0.729

 RPE LOa

10 ± 2

10 ± 2

10 ± 2

0.330

 Difficulty of Class (0–10)a

7 ± 2

7 ± 1

7 ± 2

0.547

 Challenging (Y/N)a

60 (100)

19 (100)

41 (100)

 Satisfied with HIIT (Y/N)a

64 (100)

16 (100)

48 (100)

 Safe (Y/N)a

62 (97)

14 (88)

48 (100)

0.060c

Exercise Prescriptiona

 GXT

129 (89)

 Gellish Equation

11 (8)

 Sensitivity analysis – HI HR

   

0.074

 Sensitivity analysis – LO HR

   

0.910

  1. Abbreviations: GXT graded exercise test, HI high-intensity, HIIT high-intensity interval training, HR heart rate, LO lower-intensity, RPE rating of perceived exertion, Y/N yes/no. *Significant difference between sexes (p < 0.05). a Missing data. b Continuity correction in instances where > 20% of cells had an expected count < 10.c Fisher’s Exact test in instances where > 20% of cells had an expected count < 5. Values are presented as means ± standard deviations or frequency (%)