BACKGROUND: Previous data suggest that the amount and aerobic intensity of stepping training may improve walking poststroke. Recent animal and human studies suggest that training in challenging and variable contexts can also improve locomotor function. Such practice may elicit substantial stepping errors, although alterations in locomotor strategies to correct these errors could lead to improved walking ability. OBJECTIVE: This unblinded pilot study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of providing stepping practice in variable, challenging contexts (tasks and environments) at high aerobic intensities in participants >6 months and 1-6 months post-stroke. METHODS: A total of 25 participants (gait speeds <0.9 m/s with no more than moderate assistance) participated in ≤40 training sessions (duration of 1 hour) within 10 weeks. Stepping training in variable, challenging contexts was performed at 70% to 80% heart rate reserve, with feasibility measures of total steps/session, ability to achieve targeted intensities, patient tolerance, dropouts, and adverse events. Gait speed, symmetry, and 6-minute walk were measured every 4 to 5 weeks or 20 sessions, with a 3-month follow-up (F/U). RESULTS: In all, 22 participants completed ≥4 training weeks, averaging 2887 ± 780 steps/session over 36 ± 5.8 sessions. Self-selected (0.38 ± 0.27 to 0.66 ± 0.35 m/s) and fastest speed (0.51 ± 0.40 to 0.99 ± 0.58 m/s), paretic single-limb stance (20% ± 5.9% to 25% ± 6.4%), and 6-minute walk (141 ± 99 to 260 ± 146 m) improved significantly at posttraining. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that stepping training at high aerobic intensities in variable contexts was tolerated by participants poststroke, with significant locomotor improvements. Future studies should delineate the relative contributions of amount, intensity, and variability of stepping training to maximize outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Previous data suggest that the amount and aerobic intensity of stepping training may improve walking poststroke. Recent animal and human studies suggest that training in challenging and variable contexts can also improve locomotor function. Such practice may elicit substantial stepping errors, although alterations in locomotor strategies to correct these errors could lead to improved walking ability. OBJECTIVE: This unblinded pilot study was designed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of providing stepping practice in variable, challenging contexts (tasks and environments) at high aerobic intensities in participants >6 months and 1-6 months post-stroke. METHODS: A total of 25 participants (gait speeds <0.9 m/s with no more than moderate assistance) participated in ≤40 training sessions (duration of 1 hour) within 10 weeks. Stepping training in variable, challenging contexts was performed at 70% to 80% heart rate reserve, with feasibility measures of total steps/session, ability to achieve targeted intensities, patient tolerance, dropouts, and adverse events. Gait speed, symmetry, and 6-minute walk were measured every 4 to 5 weeks or 20 sessions, with a 3-month follow-up (F/U). RESULTS: In all, 22 participants completed ≥4 training weeks, averaging 2887 ± 780 steps/session over 36 ± 5.8 sessions. Self-selected (0.38 ± 0.27 to 0.66 ± 0.35 m/s) and fastest speed (0.51 ± 0.40 to 0.99 ± 0.58 m/s), paretic single-limb stance (20% ± 5.9% to 25% ± 6.4%), and 6-minute walk (141 ± 99 to 260 ± 146 m) improved significantly at posttraining. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that stepping training at high aerobic intensities in variable contexts was tolerated by participantspoststroke, with significant locomotor improvements. Future studies should delineate the relative contributions of amount, intensity, and variability of stepping training to maximize outcomes.
Authors: Katherine J Sullivan; David A Brown; Tara Klassen; Sara Mulroy; Tingting Ge; Stanley P Azen; Carolee J Winstein Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2007-09-25
Authors: John Cha; Chad Heng; David J Reinkensmeyer; Roland R Roy; V Reggie Edgerton; Ray D De Leon Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Gabrielle Brazg; Meghan Fahey; Carey L Holleran; Mark Connolly; Jane Woodward; Patrick W Hennessy; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Jennifer K Lotter; Christopher E Henderson; Abbey Plawecki; Molly E Holthus; Emily H Lucas; Marzieh M Ardestani; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Abigail L Leddy; Mark Connolly; Carey L Holleran; Patrick W Hennessy; Jane Woodward; Ross A Arena; Elliot J Roth; T George Hornby Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Tanya Onushko; Gordhan B Mahtani; Gabrielle Brazg; T George Hornby; Brian D Schmit Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2019-03-28 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Mariëlle W van Ooijen; Anita Heeren; Katrijn Smulders; Alexander C H Geurts; Thomas W J Janssen; Peter J Beek; Vivian Weerdesteyn; Melvyn Roerdink Journal: Exp Brain Res Date: 2014-12-24 Impact factor: 1.972
Authors: Carey L Holleran; Patrick W Hennessey; Abigail L Leddy; Gordhan B Mahtani; Gabrielle Brazg; Brian D Schmit; T George Hornby Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Jennifer L Moore; Jan E Nordvik; Anne Erichsen; Ingvild Rosseland; Elisabeth Bø; T George Hornby Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-12-30 Impact factor: 7.914