Saunders David H, Sanderson Mark, Hayes Sara, Johnson Liam, Kramer Sharon, Carter Daniel D, Jarvis Hannah, Brazzelli Miriam, Mead Gillian E
University of Edinburgh, Physical Activity for Health Research Centre (PAHRC), St Leonards Land, Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK, EH8 8AQ.
University of the West of Scotland, Institute of Clinical Exercise and Health Science, Room A071A, Almada Building, Hamilton, UK, ML3 0JB.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Mar 20;3(3):CD003316. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.pub7.
Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Interventions to increase physical fitness could reduce mortality and reduce disability through increased function.
The primary objectives of this updated review were to determine whether fitness training after stroke reduces death, death or dependence, and disability. The secondary objectives were to determine the effects of training on adverse events, risk factors, physical fitness, mobility, physical function, health status and quality of life, mood, and cognitive function.
In July 2018 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and four additional databases. We also searched ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field.
Randomised trials comparing either cardiorespiratory training or resistance training, or both (mixed training), with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in stroke survivors.
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Diverse outcome measures limited the intended analyses.
We included 75 studies, involving 3017 mostly ambulatory participants, which comprised cardiorespiratory (32 studies, 1631 participants), resistance (20 studies, 779 participants), and mixed training interventions (23 studies, 1207 participants). Death was not influenced by any intervention; risk differences were all 0.00 (low-certainty evidence). There were few deaths overall (19/3017 at end of intervention and 19/1469 at end of follow-up). None of the studies assessed death or dependence as a composite outcome. Disability scores were improved at end of intervention by cardiorespiratory training (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 8 studies, 462 participants; P = 0.002; moderate-certainty evidence) and mixed training (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 9 studies, 604 participants; P = 0.02; low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to assess the effects of resistance training on disability. Secondary outcomes showed multiple benefits for physical fitness (VO peak and strength), mobility (walking speed) and physical function (balance). These physical effects tended to be intervention-specific with the evidence mostly low or moderate certainty. Risk factor data were limited or showed no effects apart from cardiorespiratory fitness (VO peak), which increased after cardiorespiratory training (mean difference (MD) 3.40 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 2.98 to 3.83; 9 studies, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any serious adverse events. Lack of data prevents conclusions about effects of training on mood, quality of life, and cognition. Lack of data also meant benefits at follow-up (i.e. after training had stopped) were unclear but some mobility benefits did persist. Risk of bias varied across studies but imbalanced amounts of exposure in control and intervention groups was a common issue affecting many comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few deaths overall suggest exercise is a safe intervention but means we cannot determine whether exercise reduces mortality or the chance of death or dependency. Cardiorespiratory training and, to a lesser extent mixed training, reduce disability during or after usual stroke care; this could be mediated by improved mobility and balance. There is sufficient evidence to incorporate cardiorespiratory and mixed training, involving walking, within post-stroke rehabilitation programmes to improve fitness, balance and the speed and capacity of walking. The magnitude of VO peak increase after cardiorespiratory training has been suggested to reduce risk of stroke hospitalisation by ˜7%. Cognitive function is under-investigated despite being a key outcome of interest for patients. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the range of benefits and any long-term benefits.
中风后身体活动水平和体能较低。提高体能的干预措施可通过增强功能降低死亡率并减少残疾。
本更新综述的主要目的是确定中风后体能训练是否能降低死亡、死亡或依赖以及残疾的发生率。次要目的是确定训练对不良事件、风险因素、体能、活动能力、身体功能、健康状况和生活质量、情绪以及认知功能的影响。
2018年7月,我们检索了Cochrane中风试验注册库、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、SPORTDiscus、PsycINFO以及另外四个数据库。我们还检索了正在进行的试验注册库和会议论文集,筛选了参考文献列表,并联系了该领域的专家。
比较中风幸存者进行心肺训练、阻力训练或两者结合(混合训练)与常规护理、无干预或非运动干预的随机试验。
两位综述作者独立选择研究、评估质量和偏倚风险并提取数据。我们使用随机效应荟萃分析进行数据分析,并使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。多样的结局指标限制了预期分析。
我们纳入了75项研究,涉及3017名大多可步行的参与者,其中包括心肺训练(32项研究,1631名参与者)、阻力训练(20项研究,779名参与者)和混合训练干预(23项研究,1207名参与者)。死亡不受任何干预影响;风险差异均为0.00(低确定性证据)。总体死亡人数很少(干预结束时19/3017,随访结束时19/1469)。没有研究将死亡或依赖作为复合结局进行评估。心肺训练在干预结束时可改善残疾评分(标准化均数差(SMD)0.52,95%CI 0.19至0.84;8项研究,462名参与者;P = 0.002;中等确定性证据),混合训练也有改善(SMD 0.23,95%CI 0.03至0.42;9项研究,604名参与者;P = 0.02;低确定性证据)。评估阻力训练对残疾影响的数据太少。次要结局显示对体能(最大摄氧量和力量)、活动能力(步行速度)和身体功能(平衡)有多种益处。这些身体方面的影响往往具有干预特异性,证据大多为低或中等确定性。风险因素数据有限,或除心肺适能(最大摄氧量)外无其他影响,心肺训练后心肺适能有所增加(均数差(MD)3.40 mL/kg/min,95%CI 2.98至3.83;9项研究,438名参与者;中等确定性证据)。没有任何严重不良事件的证据。缺乏数据无法得出关于训练对情绪、生活质量和认知影响的结论。缺乏数据也意味着随访时(即训练停止后)的益处尚不清楚,但一些活动能力益处确实持续存在。各研究的偏倚风险各不相同,但对照组和干预组暴露量不均衡是影响许多比较的常见问题。
总体死亡人数很少表明运动是一种安全的干预措施,但这意味着我们无法确定运动是否能降低死亡率或死亡或依赖的几率。心肺训练以及在较小程度上的混合训练可降低常规中风护理期间或之后的残疾程度;这可能通过改善活动能力和平衡来介导。有足够的证据将涉及步行的心肺和混合训练纳入中风后康复计划,以改善体能、平衡以及步行速度和能力。有人提出心肺训练后最大摄氧量增加的幅度可使中风住院风险降低约7%。尽管认知功能是患者感兴趣的关键结局,但对其研究不足。需要进一步设计良好的随机试验来确定最佳运动处方、益处范围以及任何长期益处。