Background: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) is superior to moderate-intensity continuous training in improving cardiorespiratory fitness in patients with cardiovascular disease, but is it safe, feasible and effective in patients with stroke? We investigated feasibility and effect of early, home-based HIIT in patients with lacunar stroke combined with usual care vs. usual care, only. Methods: Patients with minor stroke (severity: 55/58 point on the Scandinavian Stroke Scale) were randomized to HIIT or usual care in a randomized, controlled trial. We measured the following outcomes at baseline and post-intervention: cardiorespiratory fitness monitored as power output from the Graded Cycling Test with Talk Test (GCT-TT; primary outcome), physical activity, fatigue, depression, well-being, stress, cognition, endothelial function, blood pressure, body mass index, and biomarkers. Results: We included 71 patients (mean age 63.7 ± 9.2), 49 men, 31 in intervention group. Home-based HIIT was feasible with no reported adverse events in relation to the intervention. No significant change between the groups in GCT-TT power output was detected ( p = 0.90). The change in time spent on vigorous-intensity activity was 2 h/week and 0.6 h/week, intervention and usual care, respectively ( p = 0.045). There were no significant differences between groups in the remaining secondary outcomes. Conclusion: HIIT was feasible and safe in patients with lacunar stroke. Patients can engage early in home-based HIIT when involved in choosing exercise modality and guided by weekly motivational phone calls. Within 3 months, HIIT did, however, not yield effect on cardiorespiratory fitness. We await further evaluation of long-term effects of this intervention on continued regular physical exercise and cardiovascular event. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov , identifier NCT02731235

Objectives:Exercise improves endothelial dysfunction, the key manifestation of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, and is recommended in both cardiovascular and cerebrovascular rehabilitation. Disagreement remains, however, on the role of intensity of exercise. The purpose of this review was to gather current knowledge on the effects of high-intensity training versus moderate-intensity continuous exercise on endothelial function in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular patients.Methods:A systematic review was performed in PubMed database, Embase and Cochrane libraries and on PEDro using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were restricted to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular patients, and healthy subjects as general reference. Interventions comprised of high-intensity training alone, high-intensity training compared to moderate-intensity continuous exercise, or no training, with endothelial function as outcome measure. Endothelial function was measured either physiologically by flow-mediated dilatation and/or by systemic biomarkers. Data were analyzed descriptively due to non-comparability for a meta-analysis to be performed.Results:A total of 20 studies were included in the review. Although there was great heterogenecity in design, population and exercise protocols, all studies found high-intensity training to be safe. High-intensity training was equal to moderate-intensity continuous exercise through improvement in endothelial function in 15 of the 20 selected studies, as measured by flow-mediated dilatation, nitric oxide bioavailability and circulating biomarkers. Only a few studies examined high-intensity training in cerebrovascular patients, none with endothelial function as outcome.Conclusion:High-intensity training is promising as a time-efficient exercise strategy in cardiovascular rehabilitation, but data on endothelial effects in cerebrovascular rehabilitation are warranted. Agreement on a more uniform exercise protocol is essential to further investigate the optimal exercise mode for cerebrovascular rehabilitation.

No abstract