Effects of circuit training as alternative to usual physiotherapy after stroke: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effect of task oriented circuit training compared with usual physiotherapy in terms of self reported walking competency for patients with stroke discharged from a rehabilitation centre to their own home. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial with follow-up to 24 weeks. SETTING: Multicentre trial in nine outpatient rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands PARTICIPANTS: Patients with stroke who were able to walk a minimum of 10 m without physical assistance and were discharged from inpatient rehabilitation to an outpatient rehabilitation clinic. Patients were randomly allocated to circuit training or usual physiotherapy, after stratification by rehabilitation centre, with an online randomisation procedure. INTERVENTION: Patients in the intervention group received circuit training in 90 minute sessions twice a week for 12 weeks. The training included eight different workstations in a gym and was intended to improve performance in tasks relating to walking competency. The control group received usual outpatient physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mobility domain of the stroke impact scale (SIS, version 3.0). Secondary outcomes were standing balance, self reported abilities, gait speed, walking distance, stair climbing, instrumental activities of daily living, fatigue, anxiety, and depression. Differences between groups were analysed according to the intention to treat principle. All outcomes were assessed by blinded observers in a repeated measurement design lasting 24 weeks. RESULTS: 126 patients were included in the circuit training group and 124 in the usual care group (control), with data from 125 and 117, respectively, available for analysis. One patient from the circuit training group and seven from the control group dropped out. Circuit training was a safe intervention, and no serious adverse events were reported. There were no significant differences between groups for the stroke impact scale mobility domain (ß=0.05 (SE 0.68), P=0.943) at 12 weeks. Circuit training was associated with significantly higher scores in terms of gait speed (0.09 m/s (SE 0.02), P<0.001), walking distance (20.0 m (SE 7.4), P=0.007), and modified stairs test (-1.6 s (SE 0.7), P=0.015). There were no significant differences between groups for the other secondary outcomes, except for the leisure domain of the Nottingham extended activities of daily living and the memory and thinking domain of the stroke impact scale. With the exception of gait speed (-0.04 m/s (SE 0.02), P=0.040), there were no significant differences between groups at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Task oriented circuit training can safely replace usual physiotherapy for patients with stroke who are discharged from inpatient rehabilitation to the community and need further training in gait and gait related activities as an outpatient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR1534).

Is outdoor use of the six-minute walk test with a global positioning system in stroke patients' own neighbourhoods reproducible and valid?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the reproducibility, responsiveness and concurrent validity of the six-minute walk test (6MWT) when tested outdoors in patients' own neighbourhoods using a global positioning system (GPS) or a measuring wheel. METHODS: A total of 27 chronic stroke patients, discharged to their own homes, were tested twice, within 5 consecutive days. The 6MWT was conducted using a GPS and an measuring wheel simultaneously to determine walking distance. Reproducibility was determined as test-retest reliability and agreement, using the intraclass correlation coefficient, standard error of measurement and Bland & Altman plots. Responsiveness was expressed as the smallest real difference and visualized in Bland & Altman plots. Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to study concurrent validity between the GPS and measuring wheel. RESULTS: Intraclass correlation coefficiens were 0.96 for the GPS and 0.98 for the measuring wheel, and standard error of measurement scores were 11.9 m for the measuring wheel and 18.1 m for the GPS, resulting in smallest real differences of 33.0 m and 50.2 m, respectively. Concurrent validity was strong (r = 0.99). CONCLUSION: These results indicate that the outdoor 6MWT using a GPS or measuring wheel is reproducible, responsive and concurrently valid. This suggests that therapists working in the community can use the outdoor 6MWT as a reliable, responsive and valid test.