利用强制速率自行车运动促进脑卒中后的运动恢复:随机临床试验

IF 3.7 Neurorehabilitation and neural repair Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1177/15459683241233577
Susan M Linder, Andrea Bischof-Bockbrader, Sara Davidson, Yadi Li, Brittany Lapin, Tamanna Singh, John Lee, Francois Bethoux, Jay L Alberts
{"title":"利用强制速率自行车运动促进脑卒中后的运动恢复:随机临床试验","authors":"Susan M Linder, Andrea Bischof-Bockbrader, Sara Davidson, Yadi Li, Brittany Lapin, Tamanna Singh, John Lee, Francois Bethoux, Jay L Alberts","doi":"10.1177/15459683241233577","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The potential for aerobic exercise (AE) to enhance neuroplasticity post-stroke has been theorized but not systematically investigated. Our aim was to determine the effects of forced-rate AE (FE) paired with upper extremity (UE) repetitive task practice (FE + RTP) compared to time-matched UE RTP (RTP only) on motor recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single center randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2019 to December 2022. Sixty individuals ≥6 months post-stroke with UE hemiparesis were randomized to FE + RTP (N = 30) or RTP only (N = 30), completing 90-minute sessions, 3×/week for 8 weeks. The FE + RTP group underwent 45-minute of FE (5-minute warm-up, 35-minute main set, and 5-minute cool down) followed by 45-minute of UE RTP. The RTP only group completed 90-minute of RTP. Primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). The 6-minute Walk Test (6MWT, secondary outcome) assessed walking capacity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty individuals enrolled and 56 completed the study. The RTP only group completed more RTP in terms of repetitions (411.8 ± 44.4 vs 222.8 ± 28.4, <i>P</i> < .001) and time (72.7 ± 6.7 vs 37.8 ± 2.4 minutes, <i>P</i> < .001) versus FE + RTP. There was no significant difference between groups on the FMA (FE + RTP, 36.2 ± 10.1-44.0 ± 11.8 and RTP only, 34.4 ± 11.0-41.2 ± 13.4, <i>P</i> = .43) or ARAT (FE + RTP, 32.5 ± 16.6-37.7 ± 17.9 and RTP only, 32.8 ± 18.6-36.4 ± 18.5, <i>P</i> = .88). The FE + RTP group demonstrated greater improvements on the 6MWT (274.9 ± 122.0-327.1 ± 141.2 m) versus RTP only (285.5 ± 160.3-316.9 ± 170.0, <i>P</i> = .003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcomes. The FE + RTP improved more on the 6MWT, a secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03819764.</p>","PeriodicalId":94158,"journal":{"name":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","volume":" ","pages":"291-302"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11071159/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Utilization of Forced-Rate Cycling to Facilitate Motor Recovery Following Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Susan M Linder, Andrea Bischof-Bockbrader, Sara Davidson, Yadi Li, Brittany Lapin, Tamanna Singh, John Lee, Francois Bethoux, Jay L Alberts\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/15459683241233577\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The potential for aerobic exercise (AE) to enhance neuroplasticity post-stroke has been theorized but not systematically investigated. Our aim was to determine the effects of forced-rate AE (FE) paired with upper extremity (UE) repetitive task practice (FE + RTP) compared to time-matched UE RTP (RTP only) on motor recovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single center randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2019 to December 2022. Sixty individuals ≥6 months post-stroke with UE hemiparesis were randomized to FE + RTP (N = 30) or RTP only (N = 30), completing 90-minute sessions, 3×/week for 8 weeks. The FE + RTP group underwent 45-minute of FE (5-minute warm-up, 35-minute main set, and 5-minute cool down) followed by 45-minute of UE RTP. The RTP only group completed 90-minute of RTP. Primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). The 6-minute Walk Test (6MWT, secondary outcome) assessed walking capacity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty individuals enrolled and 56 completed the study. The RTP only group completed more RTP in terms of repetitions (411.8 ± 44.4 vs 222.8 ± 28.4, <i>P</i> < .001) and time (72.7 ± 6.7 vs 37.8 ± 2.4 minutes, <i>P</i> < .001) versus FE + RTP. There was no significant difference between groups on the FMA (FE + RTP, 36.2 ± 10.1-44.0 ± 11.8 and RTP only, 34.4 ± 11.0-41.2 ± 13.4, <i>P</i> = .43) or ARAT (FE + RTP, 32.5 ± 16.6-37.7 ± 17.9 and RTP only, 32.8 ± 18.6-36.4 ± 18.5, <i>P</i> = .88). The FE + RTP group demonstrated greater improvements on the 6MWT (274.9 ± 122.0-327.1 ± 141.2 m) versus RTP only (285.5 ± 160.3-316.9 ± 170.0, <i>P</i> = .003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcomes. The FE + RTP improved more on the 6MWT, a secondary outcome.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03819764.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"291-302\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11071159/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241233577\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurorehabilitation and neural repair","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15459683241233577","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有氧运动(AE)具有增强中风后神经可塑性的潜力,这一点虽有理论依据,但尚未得到系统研究。我们的目的是确定强迫有氧运动(FE)与上肢(UE)重复任务练习(FE + RTP)相比,与时间匹配的上肢重复任务练习(RTP)对运动恢复的影响:从2019年4月至2022年12月开展了一项单中心随机临床试验。60 名卒中后≥6 个月的 UE 偏瘫患者被随机分配到 FE + RTP(N = 30)或仅 RTP(N = 30)组,完成 90 分钟的疗程,3 次/周,共 8 周。FE + RTP 组进行 45 分钟的 FE(5 分钟热身、35 分钟主组和 5 分钟冷却),然后进行 45 分钟的 UE RTP。仅进行 RTP 的组则完成 90 分钟的 RTP。主要结果为 Fugl-Meyer 评估(FMA)和行动研究手臂测试(ARAT)。6分钟步行测试(6MWT,次要结果)评估步行能力:结果:60 人参加了研究,56 人完成了研究。在重复次数(411.8 ± 44.4 vs 222.8 ± 28.4,P < .001)和时间(72.7 ± 6.7 vs 37.8 ± 2.4 分钟,P < .001)方面,仅完成 RTP 组比 FE + RTP 组完成的更多。各组在 FMA(FE + RTP,36.2 ± 10.1-44.0 ± 11.8;仅 RTP,34.4 ± 11.0-41.2 ± 13.4,P = .43)或 ARAT(FE + RTP,32.5 ± 16.6-37.7 ± 17.9;仅 RTP,32.8 ± 18.6-36.4 ± 18.5,P = .88)上无明显差异。FE+RTP组在6MWT(274.9±122.0-327.1±141.2米)上比单纯RTP组(285.5±160.3-316.9±170.0,P = .003)有更大的改善:各组在主要结果上没有明显差异。结论:两组在主要结果上无明显差异,但在次要结果 6MWT 上,FE + RTP 组的改善幅度更大:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03819764。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Utilization of Forced-Rate Cycling to Facilitate Motor Recovery Following Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: The potential for aerobic exercise (AE) to enhance neuroplasticity post-stroke has been theorized but not systematically investigated. Our aim was to determine the effects of forced-rate AE (FE) paired with upper extremity (UE) repetitive task practice (FE + RTP) compared to time-matched UE RTP (RTP only) on motor recovery.

Methods: A single center randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 2019 to December 2022. Sixty individuals ≥6 months post-stroke with UE hemiparesis were randomized to FE + RTP (N = 30) or RTP only (N = 30), completing 90-minute sessions, 3×/week for 8 weeks. The FE + RTP group underwent 45-minute of FE (5-minute warm-up, 35-minute main set, and 5-minute cool down) followed by 45-minute of UE RTP. The RTP only group completed 90-minute of RTP. Primary outcomes were the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). The 6-minute Walk Test (6MWT, secondary outcome) assessed walking capacity.

Results: Sixty individuals enrolled and 56 completed the study. The RTP only group completed more RTP in terms of repetitions (411.8 ± 44.4 vs 222.8 ± 28.4, P < .001) and time (72.7 ± 6.7 vs 37.8 ± 2.4 minutes, P < .001) versus FE + RTP. There was no significant difference between groups on the FMA (FE + RTP, 36.2 ± 10.1-44.0 ± 11.8 and RTP only, 34.4 ± 11.0-41.2 ± 13.4, P = .43) or ARAT (FE + RTP, 32.5 ± 16.6-37.7 ± 17.9 and RTP only, 32.8 ± 18.6-36.4 ± 18.5, P = .88). The FE + RTP group demonstrated greater improvements on the 6MWT (274.9 ± 122.0-327.1 ± 141.2 m) versus RTP only (285.5 ± 160.3-316.9 ± 170.0, P = .003).

Conclusions: There was no significant difference between groups in the primary outcomes. The FE + RTP improved more on the 6MWT, a secondary outcome.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03819764.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Individualized Prediction of Upper Limb Strength Recovery After Cervical Spinal Cord Injury: Development and Validation of Simple Prognostic Models. External Validation of the EPOS Prediction Model for Independent Gait After Stroke. Prediction of Motor Outcome in Patients With Severe Upper Limb Impairment After Stroke Using Motor Evoked Potentials. The Relationship Between Age, Brain Structure, and Cognition in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury. TDCS Modulates Inflammatory Markers to Improve Post-Stroke Cognitive Impairment and Depression: An Exploratory Randomized Trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1