%0 Journal Article %A Pierce Boyne %A Sandra A. Billinger %A Darcy S. Reisman %A Oluwole O. Awosika %A Sofia Buckley %A Jamiah Burson %A Daniel Carl %A Matthew DeLange %A Sarah Doren %A Melinda Earnest %A Myron Gerson %A Madison Henry %A Alli Horning %A Jane Khoury %A Brett Kissela %A Abigail Laughlin %A Kiersten McCartney %A Thomas McQuaid %A Allison Miller %A Alexandra Moores %A Jacqueline A. Palmer %A Heidi Sucharew %A Elizabeth Thompson %A Erin Wagner %A Jaimie Ward %A Emily Wasik %A Alicen A. Whitaker %A Henry Wright %A Kari Dunning %T A Multicenter Randomized Comparison of High-Intensity Interval Training and Moderate-Intensity Exercise to Recover Walking Post-Stroke: Results of the HIT-Stroke Trial %D 2022 %R 10.1101/2022.08.01.22278246 %J medRxiv %P 2022.08.01.22278246 %X Introduction For walking rehabilitation after stroke, training intensity and duration are critical dosing parameters that lack optimization. This trial aimed to determine the optimal training intensity (vigorous vs moderate) and minimum training duration (4, 8 or 12 weeks) needed to maximize immediate improvement in walking capacity in chronic stroke.Methods Persons with chronic post-stroke gait dysfunction at three centers were randomized to high-intensity interval training (HIT) or moderate intensity aerobic training (MAT), each involving 45 minutes of treadmill and overground walking exercise with a physical therapist, 3 times per week for 12 weeks. The HIT protocol used repeated 30 second bursts of walking at maximum safe speed, alternated with 30-60 second recovery periods, targeting an average aerobic intensity above 60% heart rate reserve (HRR). The MAT protocol used continuous walking with speed adjusted to maintain an initial target of 40 ± 5% HRR, progressing by 5% HRR every 2 weeks, up to 60% HRR as tolerated. Blinded assessment at baseline and after 4, 8 and 12 weeks of training included the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) as the primary measure of walking capacity.Results Randomized participants (N=55) attended 1,675 (85%) of 1,980 planned treatment sessions and 197 (90%) of 220 planned testing sessions. No serious adverse events related to study procedures occurred. Compared with MAT, HIT involved significantly higher training speeds (161% vs 96% baseline fastest 10-meter speed, p<0.0001) and mean aerobic intensity (61% vs 46% HRR, p<0.0001) across treatment visits. There was no significant between-group difference in 6MWT changes after 4 weeks of training (HIT +27 meters [95% CI: 6-48], MAT +12 meters [-9-33], p=0.28), but randomization to HIT resulted in significantly greater gains than MAT after 8 weeks (+58 [39-76] vs +29 [9-48] meters, p=0.02) and 12 weeks (+71 [49-94] vs +27 [3-50] meters, p=0.005) of training. HIT also showed significantly greater improvements than MAT on some measures of gait speed, fatigue and exercise capacity.Discussion These findings show proof of concept that vigorous training intensity is a critical dosing parameter for walking rehabilitation. In chronic stroke, vigorous walking exercise can produce significant and meaningful gains in walking capacity with only 4 weeks of training, but at least 12 weeks are needed to maximize immediate gains.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT03760016Funding StatementResearch reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01HD093694. This work was also supported by Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) grants from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) awarded to the University of Cincinnati for the Cincinnati Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training (UL1TR001425) and to the University of Kansas for Frontiers: University of Kansas Clinical and Translational Science Institute (TL1TR002368). SAB was also supported by P30 AG072973. AM was also supported by a Foundation for Physical Therapy Research Florence P. Kendall Doctoral Scholarship and Promotion of Doctoral Studies I and II Scholarships. AW was also supported by NICHD on T32HD057850. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding organizations.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The Institutional Review Board of the University of Cincinnati gave ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData produced in the present study will be deposited into the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Data and Specimen Hub (DASH) repository after this manuscript is accepted for publication. %U https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/08/02/2022.08.01.22278246.full.pdf