Abstract:Background: Resistance training (RT), as part of exercise prescriptions during cardiac rehabilitation for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD), is often used as a supplement to aerobic training (AT). The effectiveness and safety of RT has not been sufficiently confirmed for coronary heart disease (CHD). Objective: To provide updated evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on efficacy and safety of RT for the rehabilitation of CHD. Method: Three English and four Chinese electronic literature databases were searched comprehensively from establishment of each individual database to Dec, 2020 . RCTs which compared RT with AT, no treatment, health education, physical therapy, conventional medical treatment (or called usually care, UC) in CHD were included. Methodological quality of RCTs extracted according to the risk of bias tool described in the Cochrane handbook. The primary outcomes were the index of cardiopulmonary exercise testing and the quality of life (QOL). The secondary outcomes included the skeletal muscle strength, aerobic capacity, left ventricular function and structure. Results: Thirty-right RCTs with a total of 2,465 participants were included in the review. The pooling results suggest the RT+AT is more effective in the cardiopulmonary exercise function (peak oxygen uptake, peak VO 2 ) [MD, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.40–2.31, P = 0.005; I 2 = 81%, P < 0.00001], the physical score of QOL [SMD, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.33–1.08, P = 0.0003; I 2 = 74%, P < 0.0001] and global score of QOL [SMD, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.43–1.14, P < 0.0001; I 2 = 60%, P = 0.03], also in the skeletal muscle strength, the aerobic capacity and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) than AT group. However, there is insufficient evidence confirmed that RT+AT can improve the emotional score of QOL [SMD, 0.27; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.61, P = 0.13; I 2 = 70%, P = 0.0004] and decrease left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). No significant difference between RT and AT on increasing peak VO 2 [MD, 2.07; 95% CI, −1.96 to 6.09, P = 0.31; I 2 = 97%, P < 0.00001], the physical [SMD, 0.18; 95% CI, −0.08 to 0.43, P = 0.18; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.51] and emotional [SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, −0.15 to 0.59, P = 0.24; I 2 = 26%, P = 0.25] score of QOL. Moreover, the pooled data of results suggest that RT is more beneficial in increasing peak VO 2 [MD, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.52–3.68, P < 0.00001], physical component [SMD, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.57–1.14, P < 0.00001; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.64] and the emotional conditions [SMD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.31–1.18, P = 0.0009; I 2 = 58%, P = 0.12] of QOL and LVEF, and decreasing LVEDD than UC. Low quality evidence provided that RT had effect in decreasing rehospitalization events than UC [RR, 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.62, P = 0.0006; I 2 = 0%, P = 0.64]. There is no significant difference in the safety of RT compared to AT. Conclusions: RT combined with AT is more beneficial than AT alone for CHD. RT can effectively improve the capacity of exercise and the QOL compared with UC. But the difference between RT and AT is still unknown. More high-quality and large-sample studies are needed to confirm our findings.

High-Load and Low-Load Resistance Exercise in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: Feasibility and Safety of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Low-Load Resistance Training With Blood Flow Restriction Improves Clinical Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation: A Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of Dynamic Exercise and Dynamic Resistance Training in Rehabilitation of Patients after Surgical Coronary Revascularization

Exercise-based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Coronary Disease: Training Impulse or Modalities?

Low-volume high-intensity interval training vs continuous aerobic cycling in patients with chronic heart failure: a pragmatic randomised clinical trial of feasibility and effectiveness

Efficacy and Safety of Resistance Training for Coronary Heart Disease Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Long-term exercise effects after cardiac telerehabilitation in patients with coronary artery disease: 1-year follow-up results of the randomized study

Adherence to exercise after an acute coronary syndrome: a 6-month randomized controlled trial

Comparison of Metabolic, Ionic, and Electrolyte Responses to Exhaustive Low-Load Strength Training With and Without Blood Flow Restriction and High-Load Resistance Training

Low-load resistance training to task failure with and without blood flow restriction: muscular functional and structural adaptations

High-intensity interval training in cardiac rehabilitation: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial

"Safety and Efficacy of Exercise-based Cardiac Rehabilitation in Patients with Refractory Angina: a Randomized, Controlled Trial"

Remotely Delivered Cardiac Rehabilitation Exercise for Coronary Heart Disease: Nonrandomized Feasibility Study

A meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation in patients with left ventricular assist devices

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis

Effect of different exercise regimens on LVEF and restenosis incidence in patients after PCI: a network meta-analysis and an overview of systematic reviews

Effects of high-intensity and moderate-intensity exercise training on cardiopulmonary function in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis

The perceptual responses of individuals with multiple sclerosis to blood flow restriction versus traditional resistance exercise

Effect of home-based high-intensity interval training using telerehabilitation among coronary heart disease patients

Assessing the effect of high-repetitive single limb exercises (HRSLE) on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): study protocol for randomized controlled trial

Exercise training in left ventricular assist device patients: Protocol of an individual participant data meta‐analysis