English Coralie, Bernhardt Julie, Crotty Maria, Esterman Adrian, Segal Leonie, Hillier Susan
International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Sansom Institute of Health Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Stroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Austin Campus, Heidelberg, Vic., Australia.
Int J Stroke. 2015 Jun;10(4):594-602. doi: 10.1111/ijs.12470. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
Increased therapy has been linked to improvements in functional ability of people with stroke.
To determine the effectiveness of two alternative models of increased physiotherapy service delivery (seven-day week therapy or group circuit class therapy five days a week) to usual care.
Three-armed randomized controlled trial with blinded assessment of outcome. People admitted with a diagnosis of stroke, previously independently ambulant and with a moderate level of disability were recruited. 'Usual care' was individual physiotherapy provided five-days a week. Seven-day week therapy was usual care physiotherapy provided seven-days a week. Participants in the circuit class therapy arm of the trial received physiotherapy in group circuit classes in two 90-min sessions, five-days a week. Primary outcome was distance walked on the six-minute walk test at four-weeks post-randomization.
Two hundred eighty-three participants were randomized; primary outcome data were available for 259 (92%). In the seven-day arm participants received an additional three hours of physiotherapy and those in the circuit class arm an additional 22 h. There were no significant between-group differences at four-weeks in walking distance (P = 0.72). Length of stay was shorter for seven-day (mean difference -2.9 days, 95% confidence interval -17.9 to 12.0) and circuit class participants (mean difference -9.2 days, 95% confidence interval -24.2 to 5.8) compared to usual care, but this was not significant.
Both seven-day therapy and group circuit class therapy increased physiotherapy time, but walking outcomes were equivalent to usual care.
强化治疗与中风患者功能能力的改善相关。
确定两种强化物理治疗服务提供模式(每周七天治疗或每周五天的小组循环训练课治疗)相对于常规护理的有效性。
三臂随机对照试验,对结果进行盲法评估。招募诊断为中风、之前能够独立行走且残疾程度为中度的患者。“常规护理”是每周五天提供的个体物理治疗。每周七天治疗是每周七天提供的常规护理物理治疗。试验中循环训练课治疗组的参与者每周五天在两个90分钟的课程中接受小组循环训练课的物理治疗。主要结局是随机分组后四周时六分钟步行试验中的步行距离。
283名参与者被随机分组;259名(92%)有主要结局数据。在每周七天治疗组中,参与者多接受了三个小时的物理治疗,而循环训练课治疗组的参与者多接受了22小时的治疗。四周时步行距离的组间差异无统计学意义(P = 0.72)。与常规护理相比,每周七天治疗组(平均差值-2.9天,95%置信区间-17.9至12.0)和循环训练课治疗组参与者(平均差值-9.2天,95%置信区间-24.2至5.8)的住院时间较短,但差异无统计学意义。
每周七天治疗和小组循环训练课治疗均增加了物理治疗时间,但步行结果与常规护理相当。