New analysis finds combined aerobic and strength training is linked to better outcomes in coronary heart disease
Researchers pooled RCT results on exercise capacity, muscle strength, quality of life, and mortality in people with CHD.
High evidenceReview
Medical disclaimer: This article summarizes research findings and is for informational purposes only. It is not medical advice.
Editorial illustration — not from the study.
The researchers searched multiple medical databases for randomized controlled trials in CHD patients that evaluated CART. They combined trial results using standard meta-analytic methods and focused on outcomes such as peak oxygen consumption (peak VO2), 6-minute walking distance (6MWD), muscle strength measures (including 1-repetition maximum and handgrip strength), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality.
Overall, the pooled results suggested CART improved exercise capacity and strength, and was linked to fewer mortality events compared with non-exercising usual care. The analysis also reported that CART appeared superior to aerobic training for several exercise and strength-related outcomes, and more effective than resistance training for improving peak VO2.
The question reviewed
The question was whether combined aerobic and resistance training (CART) improves exercise capacity, muscle strength, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and mortality in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). The study design was a systematic review with meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The abstract states the researchers searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE for RCTs comparing CART in CHD patients, and they pooled outcomes using mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.
What the evidence shows
Compared with non-exercising usual care, CART improved: relative peak VO2 by 2.20 ml/kg/min (P < 0.0001), peak torque by 16.69 N.m (P < 0.0001), handgrip strength by 4.68 kgf (P < 0.0001), and HRQoL by 1.00 (P < 0.00001), and reduced mortality (RR = 0.40; P = 0.002).
Compared with aerobic training, CART improved peak VO2 (relative and absolute) by 0.28 (P < 0.002), 6MWD by 21.98 m (P = 0.004), 1-RM by 0.61 kg (P < 0.0001), peak torque by 4.03 N.m (P = 0.002), and HRQoL by 0.50 (P < 0.0004).
Compared with resistance training, CART improved relative peak VO2 by 1.91 ml/kg/min (P < 0.00001).
Where this may apply
These findings may be most applicable to CHD populations that resemble those in the included RCTs and to rehabilitation contexts where CART was implemented similarly to the studies. They do not directly apply to people without CHD, and the abstract does not provide enough detail to judge whether specific CART formats (such as intensity, duration, or supervision) match every real-world program. This summary is informational and does not provide personal medical advice or recommendations.
What this could mean
For a general audience, exercise and physical conditioning are major concerns in CHD because they relate to how well people can function physically and how health outcomes may develop over time. This analysis is relevant because it synthesizes RCT evidence across multiple outcomes (capacity, strength, quality of life, and mortality). However, as with any pooled analysis, the exact strength of the conclusion depends on the included trials, which are not detailed in the provided abstract.
Limitations & evidence assessment
Key limitations include that the abstract does not report how many RCTs or participants were included, what the training programs looked like in detail, the follow-up duration, or the consistency of results across studies. Because this is a meta-analysis, results depend on the quality and comparability of the included RCTs. The abstract does not describe potential risks of bias, how missing data were handled, or whether publication bias was assessed. Also, while randomized trials reduce certain confounding, the pooled nature of the findings still cannot guarantee that every individual patient would respond the same way.
Why this evidence level: Meta-analysis pooling multiple studies sits at the top of common evidence hierarchies.
Evidence levels are editorial estimates derived from study metadata — they are not clinical appraisals.
// Source
Sports Medicine - Open · 2026 · DOI: 10.1186/s40798-026-01080-3
A systematic review and meta-analysis examined medication-induced increases in blood pressure during the first 72 hours after certain acute ischemic strokes. Across three studies involving 366 people, those given this treatment were more likely to be functionally independent after 90 days, although the result does not establish that the treatment caused better recovery.
This human-focused meta-analysis compared catheter ablation alone with catheter ablation combined with left atrial appendage closure in 3,274 people with atrial fibrillation across 14 studies. The combined approach was associated with more recurrent abnormal heart rhythms and a slightly longer procedure time, while one serious fluid-related complication did not differ significantly between groups. Because the underlying studies were not described in full and randomized trials are still needed, the results are not conclusive.
This systematic scoping review examined research on FASD and harmful sexual behaviours or sexual offences. Across 21 included articles, the literature reported links between FASD and these behaviours, but the review also found major gaps and does not establish that FASD causes them.
