For decades, we have known that exercise training exerts beneficial effects on the human body, and clear evidence is available that a higher fitness level is associated with a lower incidence of suffering premature cardiovascular death. Despite this knowledge, it took some time to also incorporate physical exercise training into the treatment plan for patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). In recent years, in addition to continuous exercise training, further training modalities such as high-intensity interval training and pyramid training have been introduced for coronary artery disease patients. The beneficial effect for patients with CVD is clearly documented, and during the last years, we have also started to understand the molecular mechanisms occurring in the skeletal muscle (limb muscle and diaphragm) and endothelium, two systems contributing to exercise intolerance in these patients. In the present review, we describe the effects of the different training modalities in CVD and summarize the molecular effects mainly in the skeletal muscle and cardiovascular system.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) suffer from accelerated coronary artery disease. We assessed the effects of a multifactorial intervention with focus on exercise training on coronary endothelial function, vascular structure, and inflammation in serum and skeletal muscle biopsies, including mRNA expression of diabetes candidate genes. Twenty-three patients were randomized to either 4 weeks in-hospital exercise training (6 × 15 min bicycle/day, 5 days/week) and a hypocaloric diet, followed by a 5 months ambulatory program (30 min ergometer/day, 5 days/week, plus 1 h group exercise/week), or a control group. At the beginning of the study, at 4 weeks, and after 6 months changes in diameter of coronary arteries in response to acetylcholine and mean peak flow velocity were invasively measured; intramural plaques were assessed by intravascular ultrasound. Six months of intervention led to significant improvement of coronary endothelial function, whereas intramural plaque burden remained unchanged. After 4 weeks, endothelial function remained unchanged, however, lowest values for fasting glucose, HbA1c, high-sensitive C-reactive protein, total and LDL-cholesterol, and highest values for mRNA expression in skeletal muscle of p22, gp91, haem oxygenase 1, peroxisome proliferator activator receptor (PPAR) α and γ were observed. There was a continuous increase for AdipoR1, AdipoR2, Glut4, interleukin-6, endothelial nitric oxide synthase, and PPARγ-coactivator-1α mRNA expression in skeletal muscle. This is the first study to demonstrate improvement in coronary endothelial function by a multifactorial intervention which focused on exercise training in patients with T2DM. This coincided with improved markers of hyperglycaemia, insulin sensitivity, and inflammation both in serum and skeletal muscle biopsies.

Aims: Long COVID syndrome has had a major impact on million patients’ lives worldwide. The cardiovascular system is an important aspect of this multifaceted disease that may manifest in many ways. We have hereby performed a narrative review in order to identify the extent of the cardiovascular manifestations of the Long COVID syndrome. Methods and results: An in-depth systematic search of the literature has been conducted for this narrative review. The systematic search of PubMed and Cochrane databases yielded 3993 articles, of which 629 underwent full-text screening. A total of 78 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis and data evaluation. The pathophysiology of the cardiovascular sequelae of Long COVID syndrome and the cardiac manifestations and complications of Long COVID syndrome are critically evaluated. In addition, potential cardiovascular risk factors are assessed, and preventive methods and treatment options are examined in this review. Conclusion: This systematic review poignantly summarizes the evidence from the available literature regarding the cardiovascular manifestations of Long COVID syndrome and reviews potential mechanistic pathways, diagnostic approaches, preventive measures, and treatment options.

Background Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) is associated with endothelial dysfunction and upregulation of inflammatory markers, which is potentially reversible...

Resistance training has become a mainstay of exercise training in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). However, it remains controversial whether hypertrophy resistance training (HRT) is superior to endurance resistance training (ERT) with regard to its effects on glycaemic control, muscle mass and strength. Thirty-two patients with T2DM (13 men and 19 women; 64.8 ± 7.8 years) were randomly assigned to either eight weeks of HRT (n = 16; 2 sets, 10–12 repetitions, 70% of the one-repetition maximum (1-RM)) or ERT (n = 16; 2 sets, 25–30 repetitions, 40% 1-RM). In addition, all patients participated in aerobic exercise training (AET; 1 hour/day on 2 non-consecutive days/week; cycle ergometer; 70% of heart rate reserve). After eight weeks of intervention, there were time but not group effects for reduced glucose and fructosamine levels, weight, BMI, waist circumference, subcutaneous abdominal fat, resting heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure; muscle mass of the arms and physical exercise capacity increased significantly. Significant time and group effects were documented for maximum strength of the chest, with a greater increase for HRT than ERT (p = 0.01). Specific maximal resistance training of the chest muscles led to superior gain in strength as compared to endurance resistance training. This, however, did not translate into superior values of glycaemic control, weight, waist circumference, muscle mass and physical work capacity, which all improved significantly by a similar magnitude in both groups. Since overall effects of both protocols were comparable, both may be offered to patients according to their personal preference.

Background: Although cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) is well accepted in general, CR-attendance and delivery still considerably vary between the European countries. Moreover, clinical and prognostic effects of CR are not well established for a variety of cardiovascular diseases. Methods: The guidelines address all aspects of CR including indications, contents and delivery. By processing the guidelines, every step was externally supervised and moderated by independent members of the “Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany” (AWMF). Four meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic effect of CR after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), after coronary bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with severe chronic systolic heart failure (HFrEF), and to define the effect of psychological interventions during CR. All other indications for CR-delivery were based on a predefined semi-structured literature search and recommendations were established by a formal consenting process including all medical societies involved in guideline generation. Results: Multidisciplinary CR is associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality in patients after ACS and after CABG, whereas HFrEF-patients (left ventricular ejection fraction <40%) especially benefit in terms of exercise capacity and health-related quality of life. Patients with other cardiovascular diseases also benefit from CR-participation, but the scientific evidence is less clear. There is increasing evidence that the beneficial effect of CR strongly depends on “treatment intensity” including medical supervision, treatment of cardiovascular risk factors, information and education, and a minimum of individually adapted exercise volume. Additional psychologic interventions should be performed on the basis of individual needs. Conclusions: These guidelines reinforce the substantial benefit of CR in specific clinical indications, but also describe remaining deficits in CR-delivery in clinical practice as well as in CR-science with respect to methodology and presentation.