Characterizing Heart Rate Response During Upper Extremity Repetitive Task Practice in Chronic Stroke.

IMPORTANCE: Although the cardiopulmonary benefits of aerobic exercise poststroke are well-established, typical stroke rehabilitation does not elicit an aerobic response. OBJECTIVE: To characterize heart rate response during upper extremity repetitive task practice (RTP) and determine factors that predict a higher aerobic intensity during RTP. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a subset of data from a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Research laboratory in a large academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with chronic stroke (N = 19). INTERVENTION: Participants received 90 min of RTP for 24 sessions across 8 wk. OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Aerobic intensity as measured by heart rate reserve (HRR) during RTP. RESULTS: A total of 2,968 tasks were included in the analysis. Of the tasks performed, approximately 79.5% elicited a very light aerobic response (<30% HRR), 10.2% elicited a light aerobic response (30%-39% HRR), and 10.3% elicited a moderate to vigorous intensity aerobic response (≥40% HRR). Of the tasks that elicited a moderate to vigorous intensity aerobic response, 54.1% were performed in standing, 79.7% were gross motor in nature, and 27.9% had targets at or above shoulder height. Standing position, targets at or above shoulder height, and gross motor tasks predicted higher HRR (all ps < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To maximize aerobic intensity during poststroke RTP, therapists should include gross motor tasks trained in standing with targets at or above shoulder height. Plain-Language Summary: The study characterizes heart rate response in stroke rehabilitation and identifies factors that predict a higher aerobic intensity during upper extremity repetitive task practice. Certain task characteristics were more likely to produce an aerobic response, including gross motor, targets at or above the shoulder, and a standing position. Occupational therapists should include gross motor tasks trained in standing with targets at or above shoulder height to maximize aerobic intensity during poststroke repetitive task practice. Monitoring heart rate may improve awareness of aerobic response to training.

An 8-week Forced-rate Aerobic Cycling Program Improves Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Persons With Chronic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the cardiorespiratory effects of a forced-rate aerobic exercise (FE) intervention among individuals with chronic stroke compared with an upper extremity repetitive task practice (UE RTP) control group. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Research laboratory. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with chronic stroke (N=60). INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed 24 sessions of FE followed by RTP (FE+RTP, N=30) or time matched RTP alone (N=30). The FE+RTP group was prescribed exercise at 60%-80% of heart rate reserve on a motorized stationary cycle ergometer for 45 minutes followed by 45 minutes of RTP. The control group completed 90 minutes of RTP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Metabolic exercise stress tests on a cycle ergometer were conducted at baseline and post-intervention. Outcomes included peak oxygen consumption (peak V̇o2) and anaerobic threshold (AT). RESULTS: Fifty participants completed the study intervention and pre/post stress tests. The FE+RTP group demonstrated significantly greater improvements in peak V̇o2 from 16.4±5.7 to 18.3±6.4 mL/min/kg compared with the RTP group (17.0±5.6 to 17.2±5.6 mL/min/kg, P=.020) and significantly greater improvements in AT from 10.3±2.8 to 11.5±3.6 mL/min/kg compared with the RTP group (10.8±3.9 to 10.4±3.2 mL/min/kg, P=.020). In analyzing predictors of post-intervention peak V̇o2, the multivariable linear regression model did not reveal a significant effect of age, sex, body mass index, or beta blocker usage. Similarly, bivariate linear regression models for the FE group only did not find any exercise variables (aerobic intensity, power, or cycling cadence) to be significant predictors of peak V̇o2. CONCLUSIONS: While the aerobic exercise intervention was integrated into rehabilitation to improve UE motor recovery, it was also effective in eliciting significant and meaningful improvements in cardiorespiratory fitness. This novel rehabilitation model may be an effective approach to improve motor and cardiorespiratory function in persons recovering from stroke.

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.