Dataset Information

Moderate-intensity exercise versus high-intensity interval training to recover walking post-stroke: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Stroke results in neurologic impairments and aerobic deconditioning that contribute to limited walking capacity which is a major barrier post-stroke. Current exercise recommendations and stroke rehabilitation guidelines recommend moderate-intensity aerobic training post-stroke. Locomotor high-intensity interval training is a promising new strategy that has shown significantly greater improvements in aerobic fitness and motor performance than moderate-intensity aerobic training in other populations. However, the relative benefits and risks of high-intensity interval training and moderate-intensity aerobic training remain poorly understood following stroke. In this study, we hypothesize that locomotor high-intensity interval training will result in greater improvements in walking capacity than moderate-intensity aerobic training.

Methods

Using a single-blind, 3-site randomized controlled trial, 50 chronic (> 6 months) stroke survivors are randomly assigned to complete 36 locomotor training sessions of either high-intensity interval training or moderate-intensity aerobic training. Main eligibility criteria are age 40-80 years, single stroke for which the participant received treatment (experienced 6 months to 5 years prior to consent), walking speed ≤ 1.0 m/s, able to walk at least 3 min on the treadmill at ≥ 0.13 m/s (0.3 mph), stable cardiovascular condition (American Heart Association class B), and the ability to walk 10 m overground without continuous physical assistance. The primary outcome (walking capacity) and secondary outcomes (self-selected and fast gait speed, aerobic fitness, and fatigue) are assessed prior to initiating training and after 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks of training.

Discussion

This study will provide fundamental new knowledge to inform the selection of intensity and duration dosing parameters for gait recovery and optimization of aerobic training interventions in chronic stroke. Data needed to justify and design a subsequent definitive trial will also be obtained. Thus, the results of this study will inform future stroke rehabilitation guidelines on how to optimally improve walking capacity following stroke.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03760016 . Registered on November 30, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Miller A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8284012 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Poststroke guidelines recommend moderate-intensity, continuous aerobic training (MCT) to improve aerobic capacity and mobility after stroke. High-intensity interval training (HIT) has been shown to be more effective than MCT among healthy adults and people with heart disease. However, HIT and MCT have not been compared previously among people with stroke.The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and justification for a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing HIT and MCT in people with chronic stroke.A preliminary RCT was conducted.The study was conducted in a cardiovascular stress laboratory and a rehabilitation research laboratory.Ambulatory people at least 6 months poststroke participated.Both groups trained 25 minutes, 3 times per week, for 4 weeks. The HIT strategy involved 30-second bursts at maximum-tolerated treadmill speed alternated with 30- to 60-second rest periods. The MCT strategy involved continuous treadmill walking at 45% to 50% of heart rate reserve.Measurements included recruitment and attendance statistics, qualitative HIT acceptability, adverse events, and the following blinded outcome variables: peak oxygen uptake, ventilatory threshold, metabolic cost of gait, fractional utilization, fastest treadmill speed, 10-Meter Walk Test, and Six-Minute Walk Test.During the 8-month recruitment period, 26 participants consented to participate. Eighteen participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the HIT group (n=13) or the MCT group (n=5). Eleven out of the 13 HIT group participants attended all sessions. Participants reported that HIT was acceptable and no serious adverse events occurred. Standardized effect size estimates between groups were moderate to very large for most outcome measures. Only 30% of treadmill speed gains in the HIT group translated into overground gait speed improvement.The study was not designed to definitively test safety or efficacy.Although further protocol optimization is needed to improve overground translation of treadmill gains, a definitive RCT comparing HIT and MCT appears to be feasible and warranted.

Project description:IntroductionSince adolescents with obesity are prone to bone fragility during weight loss, the aim was to compare the impact of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous training (MICT) on bone density, geometry, and strength.MethodsSixty-one adolescents were randomly assigned to 2 cycling trainings (HIIT and MICT) and a control (CTR, without training) group. Anthropometry, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry with hip structural analysis and the trabecular bone score (TBS) were assessed before and after the 16-week intervention.ResultsBody mass index (BMI) and fat mass (FM) percentage decreased at T1 versus T0 in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p = 0.01 for MICT), though to a larger extent in HIIT (p < 0.05). Total body bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content (BMC) increased in both training groups (p < 0.001), but to a greater extent in HIIT for BMC (p < 0.05). Lumbar spine BMD and BMC increased in both training groups (p < 0.001 for HIIT, p < 0.01 for MICT), with a time × group interaction between HIIT and CTR (p < 0.05) only. TBS increased in both training groups (p < 0.01 for HIIT, p < 0.05 for MICT). Hip BMD and BMC increased in both HIIT (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and MICT (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). At the narrow neck (NN), endocortical diameter, width (p < 0.01), cross-sectional moment of inertia, and section modulus (Z) (p < 0.05) increased only in the HIIT group, such as BMD and Z (p < 0.05) at the intertrochanteric region (IT) and average cortical thickness (p < 0.001) and width (p < 0.05) at the femoral shaft. At the NN and IT, the buckling ratio decreased only in the HIIT group (p < 0.05), predicting higher resistance to fracture.ConclusionsIn addition to inducing greater BMI and FM percentage decreases in comparison to MICT, HIIT improves multisite bone density, geometry, and strength, which heighten the justification for HIIT as part of weight loss interventions in adolescents with obesity.

Project description:To date, there are several knowledge gaps on how to properly prescribe concurrent training to achieve the best dose-response, especially regarding the optimal intensity or volume of the aerobic component. Thus, the objective of this study is to analyze the effects of different aerobic exercise modes and intensities [i.e. aerobic high-intensity interval training (HIIT) versus moderate-intensity continuous aerobic training (MICT) combined with a resistance training (RT) program] on metabolic outcomes in participants with metabolic syndrome (MetS). Thirty-nine men and women (67.0 ± 6.7 years) volunteered to a 12-weeks exercise intervention (3 week-1, 50 min/session) and were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) RT plus MICT (RT+MICT) (2 males; 11 females); (b) RT plus HIIT (RT+HIIT) (4 males; 9 females); and (c) control group (CON) - without formal exercise (4 males; 9 females). Intensity was established between 60 and 70% of maximum heart rate (HRmax) in RT+MICT and ranged from 55-65% to 80-90% HRmax in the RT+HIIT group. Dependent outcomes included morphological, metabolic and hemodynamic variables. Both training groups improved waist circumference (RT+MICT: P = 0.019; RT+HIIT: P = 0.003), but not body weight, fat mass or fat-free mass (P ? 0.114). RT+HIIT group improved fasting glucose (P = 0.014), low density lipoprotein [LDL (P = 0.022)], insulin (P = 0.034) and homeostatic model assessment (P = 0.028). RT+MICT group reduced triglycerides (P = 0.053). Both exercise interventions did not change high sensitivity C-reactive protein, glycated hemoglobin, high density lipoprotein and total cholesterol, systolic, diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure (P ? 0.05). The CON group reduced the LDL (P = 0.031). This trial suggests that short-term exercise mode and intensity may differently impact the metabolic profile of individuals with MetS. Further, our data suggests that both concurrent trainings promote important cardiometabolic gains, particularly in the RT+HIIT. Nonetheless, due to the small-to-moderate effect size and the short-term intervention length, our data suggests that the intervention length also has an important modulating role in these benefits in older adults with MetS. Therefore, more research is needed to confirm our results using longer exercise interventions and larger groups.

Project description:BackgroundInterstitial lung disease is a debilitating condition associated with significant dyspnoea, fatigue, and poor exercise tolerance. Pulmonary rehabilitation is an effective and key intervention in people with interstitial lung disease. However, despite the best efforts of patients and clinicians, many of those who participate are not achieving clinically meaningful benefits. This assessor-blinded, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial aims to compare the clinical benefits of high intensity interval exercise training versus the standard pulmonary rehabilitation method of continuous training at moderate intensity in people with fibrotic interstitial lung disease.MethodsEligible participants will be randomised to either a standard pulmonary rehabilitation group using moderate intensity continuous exercise training or high intensity interval exercise training. Participants in both groups will undertake an 8-week pulmonary rehabilitation program of twice-weekly supervised exercise training including aerobic (cycling) and strengthening exercises. In addition, participants in both groups will be prescribed a home exercise program. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, upon completion of the intervention and at six months following the intervention by a blinded assessor. The primary outcome is endurance time on a constant work rate test. Secondary outcomes are functional capacity (6-min walk distance), health-related quality of life (Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire (CRQ), St George's Respiratory Questionnaire idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis specific version (SGRQ-I), breathlessness (Dyspnoea 12, Modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale), fatigue (fatigue severity scale), anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), physical activity level (GeneActiv), skeletal muscle changes (ultrasonography) and completion and adherence to pulmonary rehabilitation.DiscussionThe standard exercise training strategies used in pulmonary rehabilitation may not provide an optimal exercise training stimulus for people with interstitial lung disease. This study will determine whether high intensity interval training can produce equivalent or even superior changes in exercise performance and symptoms. If high intensity interval training proves effective, it will provide an exercise training strategy that can readily be implemented into clinical practice for people with interstitial lung disease. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03800914). Registered 11 January 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03800914 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619000019101. Registered 9 January 2019, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=376050&isReview=true.