OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of continuous versus interval aerobic exercise training on hemodynamic parameters, cardiac remodeling, and maximal exercise capacity (MEC) in chronic heart failure (CHF) rats.METHOD: Twenty-four male Wistar rats were subjected to myocardial infarction (MI) surgery. Five weeks post MI, the animals were assigned to one of three groups: sedentary group (CHF-Sed, n=8), aerobic continuous training group (CHF-ACT, n=8), and aerobic interval training group (CHF-AIT, n=8). Treadmill training was performed five times a week for 8 weeks (ACT: 50 min/day at 15 m/min and AIT: 40 min/day with 8 min of warm-up at 10 m/min and exercise at 15 m/min 4×4 min interspersed with 4×4 min at 23 m/min). MEC was evaluated pre and post exercise program.RESULTS: Left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP), left ventricular mass/body mass ratio (LVM:BM), and total collagen volume fraction were lower in the trained groups compared with the sedentary group, but no difference was found between the trained groups. Systolic ventricular pressure (SVP) and maximum positive derivative of LV pressure (+dP/dtmax) were higher in the trained groups, but CHF-ACT showed higher +dP/dtmax compared to CHF-AIT. Both training regimens were able to increase MEC. However, the aerobic interval training was superior for improving MEC.CONCLUSION: Aerobic training is an important intervention to improve cardiac function and remodeling and physical capacity in CHF rats. Interval training is a potential strategy to maximize the results, but exercise type and intensity are still topics to be explored.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a common complication of diabetes mellitus, and pharmacological therapies are ineffective in many patients. Therefore, other treatment modalities should be considered, including electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields.OBJECTIVES: The research objective was to evaluate the effect of treatment with electrical stimulation and electromagnetic fields on pain and sensitivity in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy compared with placebo or another intervention.METHOD: We searched the following electronic databases (from inception to April 2012): MEDLINE (accessed by PubMed), LILACS, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included randomized trials that compared electrical stimulation or electromagnetic fields with control groups in which the objective was to assess pain and sensitivity in patients with PDN. Two reviewers independently extracted the data. A random-effects model was used for the main analysis. RESULTS: The search retrieved 1336 articles, of which 12 studies were included. Reductions in the mean pain score were significantly greater in the TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) group than in the placebo group [-0.44 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.09; I2: 0%)]. There was no improvement in pain relief when electromagnetic fields were compared with the control group [-0.69 (95% CI: -1.86 to 0.48; I2: 63%)].CONCLUSIONS: We found that TENS improved pain relief in patients with diabetic neuropathy, while no such improvement was observed with the use of electromagnetic field treatment. Due to the methodological differences between the studies, a meta-analysis for the outcome of sensitivity could not be performed.