Walking with rhythmic auditory stimulation in chronic patients after stroke: A pilot randomized controlled trial.
Study Goal
The researchers aimed to compare the effects of overground gait training with and without rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS) on walking velocity, capacity, balance, and stride length in chronic stroke patients.
Results Summary
Both gait training interventions (with and without RAS) improved walking velocity, capacity, balance, and stride length, but there were no significant differences between the two groups. The improvements were modest and not clinically distinct.
Population
Chronic stroke patients (mean age 67 years, 9 females, all left-sided strokes, mean illness duration 67 months).
Effective Dosage
30 minutes, three times a week for 4 weeks.
Duration
4 weeks.
Interactions
None mentioned.
| Intervention | Direction | Endpoint | Population | Dosage | Impact | Claim # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | walking velocity | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 0.05 m/s | improved | #1 |
overground gait training without rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | walking velocity | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 0.12 m/s | improved | #2 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | walking capacity | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 14 m | improved | #3 |
overground gait training without rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | walking capacity | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 41 m | improved | #4 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | no change | walking velocity | patients after chronic stroke | - | did not differ significantly | #5 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | no change | walking capacity | patients after chronic stroke | - | did not differ significantly | #6 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | Berg Balance Scale | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 4 points | improved | #7 |
overground gait training without rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | Berg Balance Scale | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 1 point | improved | #8 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | stride length | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 6.3 cm | improved | #9 |
overground gait training without rhythmic auditory stimulation | increase | stride length | patients after chronic stroke | median difference 5.5 cm | improved | #10 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | no change | Berg Balance Scale | patients after chronic stroke | - | did not differ significantly | #11 |
overground gait training with rhythmic auditory stimulation | no change | stride length | patients after chronic stroke | - | did not differ significantly | #12 |
walking with rhythmic auditory stimulation | no change | walking | chronic patients after stroke | - | does not provide a beneficial effect | #13 |
OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of studies that evaluate the effects of different gait training (GT) interventions for patients after stroke in an outpatient setting. The aim of the present trial therefore was to evaluate the effects of two different outpatient GT programmes after chronic stroke. METHODS: We randomly allocated patients into two groups of either a 4-week overground GT with rhythmic auditory stimulation (RAS, n = 6) of 30 min, three times a week over 4 weeks or an overground GT without RAS (GT, n = 6) with same duration and intensity. Primary outcomes were walking velocity and capacity; secondary outcomes were the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and stride length before and after interventions and at 12 weeks follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve patients after stroke (nine females; mean [SD] age 67 [9] years; duration of illness 67 [69] months; all left-sided strokes) were included. Patients improved their walking velocity from baseline until the end of GT (RAS: median difference 0.05 m/s [interquartile range, IQR 0.06] and GT: 0.12 m/s [0.29]) and walking capacity (RAS: median difference 14 m [IQR 14] and GT: 41 m [79]). However, RAS and GT did not differ significantly (p = .30 and p = .30, respectively). Patients improved from baseline until the end of intervention in BBS (RAS: median difference 4 points [IQR 4] and GT: 1 point [3]) and stride length (RAS: median difference 6.3 cm [IQR 12.1] and GT: 5.5 cm [8.8]). However, BBS and stride length did not differ significantly between groups (p = .08 and p = .58, respectively). CONCLUSION: Walking with rhythmic auditory stimulation in chronic patients after stroke does not provide a beneficial effect on walking when compared with walking without rhythmic auditory stimulation.