The effect of exercise on aerobic capacity in individuals with spinal cord injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression

1. INTRODUCTION

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a complex neurological condition, caused by trauma, disease or degeneration, which results in sensory-motor deficits (i.e., paralysis or paresis) below the level of lesion and autonomic dysfunctions. Progressive physical deconditioning following injury results in increased health care utilisation, reliance on personal assistance services and a greater predisposition towards developing chronic diseases [1,2]. Individuals with SCI are at an increased risk of stroke, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and type-2 diabetes mellitus compared to non-injured counterparts [3–5]. The elevated incidence of these conditions in people with SCI emphasises the need for targeted interventions to address modifiable risk factors for these chronic diseases, such as cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF). In clinical populations CRF is typically defined as an individual’s peak oxygen uptake (V̇O_2peak) or peak power output (PPO). V̇O_2peak and PPO are determined during graded cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to the point of volitional exhaustion, and represents the integrated functioning of different bodily systems (pulmonary, cardiovascular and skeletal) to uptake, transport and utilise oxygen for metabolic processes [6]. A number of prospective studies have indicated that CRF is at least as important, if not more so, than other traditional CVD risk factors (e.g., obesity, hypertension and smoking) and is strongly associated with mortality [7–12].

Low levels of CRF have been widely reported in the SCI-population [13], with the between-person variability partially explained by the neurological level and severity of injury (i.e., lower CRF reported in individuals with tetraplegia) [14]. A large proportion of the variance in CRF is also explained by physical activity [15], which is reduced in the SCI-population [16,17]. Performing regular physical activity and/or structured exercise has long been promoted for improving CRF in individuals with SCI [18,19]. In 2011, the first evidence-based exercise guidelines, specifically for individuals with SCI were developed [20], which stated that “for important fitness benefits, adults with SCI should engage in at least 20 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous-intensity aerobic activity and strength-training exercises 2 times per week”. This guideline has since been updated, yet remains the same with regards to CRF benefits [21]. Although this implies adults with SCI can accrue fitness benefits from volumes of activity well below that promoted in the general population, others have advocated that adults with a physical disability [22,23] and individuals with SCI [24] should aim to perform at least 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week. For additional health benefits it has been suggested that adults should perform closer to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity physical activity [25,26]. While the current SCI-specific guidelines likely represent the “minimum” threshold required to achieve CRF benefits, it has been suggested that this creates an impression that individuals with SCI do not need to be as physically active as the general population [27]. The dose-response relationship between exercise volume and CRF improvements in individuals with SCI remains to be elucidated.

It is noteworthy that the aforementioned SCI-specific exercise guidelines utilise the terminology of “moderate-to-vigorous” to describe the desired exercise intensity. This is in contrast to accepted guidelines in the general population whereby moderate and vigorous-intensity exercise are distinguished from one another with specific thresholds (e.g., ≥150 minutes of moderate-intensity or ≥75 minutes of vigorous-intensity activity per week) [23]. Exercise intervention intensity has been shown to influence the magnitude of change in CRF in patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation [28,29]. The feasibility/effectiveness of higher intensity exercise is also currently a topical area of research in the SCI-population [30–32]. There is the potential for vigorous-intensity exercise to be more time efficient or lead to superior health benefits, although the impact of different high-intensity interval training protocols on CRF in individuals with SCI compared to moderate-intensity exercise is yet to be determined. A recent systematic review identified that exercise interventions of a specific modality yield distinct changes in certain cardiometabolic health outcomes, but not other outcomes, in individuals with SCI [33]. This provides rationale for wanting to investigate the efficacy of different exercise modalities on CRF in this population. Consequently, a number of research questions requiring further attention include:

1. Do injury-specific characteristics (e.g., tetraplegia vs. paraplegia, acute vs. chronic injuries, motor-complete vs. incomplete) mediate CRF responses to exercise?

2. What is the best intensity, frequency, and volume of weekly exercise?

3. Is there an optimal conditioning modality [e.g., upper-body aerobic exercise, resistance training, functional electrical stimulation (FES), hybrid or multimodal exercise interventions etc.]?

To address these questions, we performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression to investigate the impact of different exercise interventions on changes in CRF in individuals with SCI. Moreover, we gathered evidence to determine whether key moderators (e.g., participant/injury characteristics, intervention/study characteristics and risk of bias) influence these intervention effects.

2. METHODS

This review is reported as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [34] (S1 Checklist) and was prospectively registered (PROSPERO ID CRD42018104342). The primary meta-analysis of this review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs; exercise intervention versus a comparison control group). A secondary, pooled meta-analysis was also conducted that combined the intervention arms of RCTs with non-randomised study designs (RCTs and pre-post exercise interventions without a comparison control group). Further secondary meta-analyses were conducted that included cohort comparisons (e.g., physically inactive vs. habitual exercisers) and observational studies (e.g., standard of care rehabilitation), along with RCTs that specifically compared the impact of different exercise intensities (e.g., low or moderate-intensity vs. vigorous or supramaximal) on CRF outcomes. Lastly, we qualitatively reviewed cross-sectional studies that reported associations between physical activity and CRF outcomes.

3. RESULTS

The initial database search identified 14,248 articles after removal of duplicates. A further 12,322 studies were removed following the screening of titles and abstracts. The remaining 1,926 articles were selected for full-text review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria (S2). Of these, a total of 120 eligible studies, across each specific study design (RCT = 29, pre-post = 67, observational = 6, cross-sectional cohort = 11, cross-sectional association = 7), were included in this review. Twenty-nine RCTs were included in the primary meta-analysis. Ninety-six studies, comprising the RCTs and pre-post studies (total = 117 independent interventions), were included in the secondary, pooled meta-analysis. Summaries of the pooled cohorts and descriptions of the individual studies included within each additional secondary meta-analysis are provided as supplementary material.

3.1. Primary meta-analysis: RCT exercise intervention vs control groups

Twenty-two RCTs assessed changes in CRF outcomes between exercise intervention (n=283 participants) and control (n=252 participants) groups. Participant demographics, injury characteristics, exercise intervention parameters and changes in CRF outcomes for each RCT can be found in Figure 2. A summary of the pooled cohort characteristics, summary statistics for the meta-analysis and forest plots for each CRF outcome are presented in supplementary material (S5). The meta-analysis of RCTs revealed a significantly higher AV̇O_2peak [0.16 (0.07, 0.25) L/min, p<0.001], RV̇O_2peak [2.9 (1.8, 3.9) mL/kg/min, p<0.001], and PPO [9 (5, 14) W, p<0.001] following exercise interventions relative to controls. There was significant heterogeneity present across all CRF outcomes (p<0.001), with I² values of 87%, 93% and 88% for AV̇O_2peak, RV̇O_2peak, and PPO, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram. Abbreviation: PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

Summary of the study design, exercise intervention parameters, participant demographics/injury characteristics and changes in cardiorespiratory fitness outcomes for each randomised controlled trial study included in the primary meta-analysis. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (ROB) and rated as either low (L), some concerns (SC) or high (H) risk. AV̇O_2peak, absolute peak oxygen uptake; BC, behaviour change; FES, functional electrical stimulation; L, light-intensity; M, moderate-intensity; M/CD, mixed/cannot determine; M-V, moderate-to-vigorous-intensity; NR, not reported; PPO, peak power output; RT, resistance training; RV̇O_2peak, relative peak oxygen uptake; SCI, spinal cord injury; V, vigorous-intensity.

3.2. Secondary, pooled meta-analysis: Effects of prescribed, prospective exercise interventions from pre-post and RCT studies

CRF responses were pooled across 96 studies, comprising 117 exercise interventions in total, taken from 81 pre-post exercise interventions and 36 independent exercise intervention arms from RCTs. Some studies included multiple exercise intervention arms/phases, hence the greater total number of exercise interventions than studies. A summary of the demographic/injury characteristics and intervention parameters for the pooled cohort (i.e., all 117 interventions) included in the analyses for AV̇O_2peak, RV̇O_2peak, and PPO are presented in supplementary material (S6). Participant demographics and exercise intervention parameters across the total 117 exercise interventions are summarised below. Summaries of the interventions for each CRF outcome, along with details of the specific studies is presented in online supplementary material (S6).

3.2.1. Participants

Across the 117 exercise interventions, there were a total of 1,331 participants. Most interventions included both males and females (63% of studies), where females made up between 6-80% of the mixed cohorts. There were no female-only cohorts. Mean age ranged between 23 to 58 years and the majority of participants had chronic injuries (64% >1-year), with mean TSI ranging between 56 days to 24 years. Sixty-three interventions included a mixed cohort of paraplegia and tetraplegia, of which individuals with paraplegia made up between 10-88% of the mixed cohorts. Four interventions recruited individuals with tetraplegia-only, 39 paraplegia-only, and 11 did not specify. Participants across all AIS groups were included, of which 41 interventions were motor-complete-only, 19 were motor-incomplete-only, and 20 did not report. Thirty-seven interventions recruited both motor-complete and incomplete individuals, of which 33% were motor-incomplete. Weighted mean AV̇O_2peak and RV̇O_2peak at baseline was 1.28 (0.51-3.50) L/min and 17.8 (7.3-36.9) mL/kg/min, respectively, and PPO was 49 (0-168) W.

3.2.2. Exercise intervention characteristics

Length of interventions ranged from 4 to 52 weeks, and whilst most studies reported a specific, predetermined intervention length, some reported a range [59–61], a total or targeted number of sessions [60,62–66], or provided an average [65,67,68]. Exercise sessions were completed between two to seven times per week. Eleven studies reported a range (e.g., “two to three sessions”) or maximum frequency (e.g., “up to three sessions/week”) [60,63,66,69–76], and frequency was either not reported or could not be determined in seven studies [39,77–82]. The remainder reported an exact frequency (e.g., three sessions per week). The duration of exercise sessions ranged from 5 to 90 minutes, with five studies reporting a range (e.g., 20-30 min) [60,76,83–85] and six studies reporting a progression to a target duration [63,86–90]. Duration was not reported or could not be determined in 15 studies. Based on current exercise guidelines, 23 interventions prescribed exercise within the SCI-specific exercise guidelines for fitness (40-89 min/week), 45 interventions targeted the SCI-specific exercise guidelines for cardiometabolic health (90-149 min/week), and 30 were greater than general population exercise guidelines (≥150 min/week).

Forty-two interventions utilised aerobic upper-body exercise, 7 upper-body resistance training, 22 FES, 15 gait training, 5 behaviour change, and 26 mixed/multimodal interventions. Following the ACSM thresholds, one intervention prescribed light-intensity (1%), 17 prescribed moderate-intensity (14%), 35 prescribed moderate-to-vigorous-intensity (30%), 26 prescribed vigorous-intensity (22%), and 2 prescribed supramaximal-intensity exercise (2%). Intensity could not be determined from 36 interventions (31%). With regards to exercise intensity prescription methods, 35 interventions used HR, regulated either via HR_peak (%HR_peak, i.e., determined via a CPET; N=10), HR_max (%HR_max, i.e., age-predicted; N=10), or HR reserve (%HRR; N=15). Fourteen interventions established intensity using V̇O_2peak (%V̇O_2peak; N=13) or V̇O₂ reserve (%V̇O_2reserve; N=1) calculated from the pre-intervention CPET. Fourteen interventions utilised RPE, using either the Borg CR10 scale (N=7) or the Borg 6-20 scale (N=7). Workload was used to prescribe intensity in 11 interventions, via a percentage of PPO (%PPO; N=6), one repetition maximum (%1RM; N=4), or maximal tolerated power (%MTP; N=1). Forty-three interventions either used a mixture of prescription methods or intensity could not be classified.

3.2.3. Adverse events

Adverse events were described in 18 interventions, comprising at least 49/1,331 (3.7%) participants (S7). These events were related to: 1) bone, joint or muscular pain (n=10 participants), 2) autonomic or cardiovascular function (n=8 participants), 3) skin irritation or pressure sores (n=18 participants), and 4) other events including anxiety, nausea, dizziness and issues with testing equipment (n=3 participants). The following adverse events were reported in four other pre-post studies but could not be categorised as above. Beillot et al. [77] stated that participants experienced “spontaneous fractures of lower limbs, occurrence of a syringomyelia and pressure sores at the foot and ankle” (n=10), but did not define the number of participants who sustained each event. Likewise, Janssen and Pringle [70] reported “lightheadedness in some subjects” and Gibbons et al. [91] stated that “a number of participants showed some level of autonomic dysreflexia during the FES response test”, but both studies did not quantify further. Vestergaard et al. [92] reported adverse events relating to “slight non-persisting pain in neck (n=1), arms and shoulders (n=4) during and between training sessions, dizziness that disappeared after 5-min (n=1), feeling tired in the head/dizziness that disappeared after training with no other signs of autonomic hyperreflexia (n=2), increased spasms (n=2), and vomiting just after training (n=2)”. However, as only seven participants completed the intervention, it cannot be determined whether these events were reported for one or multiple participants.

3.2.4. Change in CRF outcomes

Seventy-four exercise interventions assessed the change in AV̇O_2peak, revealing a significant increase of 0.22 [0.17, 0.26] L/min (p<0.001). There were no significant subgroup differences for any of the nine subgroup analyses. Seventy-nine exercise interventions assessed the change in RV̇O_2peak, revealing a significant increase of 2.8 [2.3, 3.3] mL/kg/min (p<0.001). There were significant subgroup differences for exercise modality (p=0.002) and length of intervention (p=0.01), but there were no other differences (Figure 3). Sixty-five exercise interventions assessed the change in PPO, revealing a significant increase of 11 [9, 13] W (p<0.001). There were significant subgroup differences for TSI (p<0.001), neurological level of injury (p<0.001), exercise modality (p=0.002), relative exercise intensity (p=0.001), method of exercise intensity prescription (p<0.001), and frequency (p<0.001) (Figure 3). There was significant heterogeneity present across all CRF outcomes (p<0.001), with I² values of 72%, 53% and 78% for AV̇O_2peak, RV̇O_2peak, and PPO, respectively. Forest plots for each subgroup analysis are presented in supplementary material (S6).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Overview of the subgroup effects for relative peak oxygen uptake (A; RV̇O_2peak) and peak power output (B; PPO) for pooled pre-post and randomised-controlled trial exercise interventions based on injury-specific characteristics (purple) and exercise intervention parameters (blue). Individual subgroup effects are highlighted in bold. Differences within each subgroup category are represented by green ticks whereas subgroup categories without significant differences are represented by red question marks. AIS, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale; FES, functional electrical stimulation; Mod-to-Vig, moderate-to-vigorous; NR/CD, not reported/cannot determine; RPE, rating of perceived exertion; V̇O₂, volume of oxygen consumption W, watts.

An additional subgroup analysis grouped interventions into those that matched the CPET modality to the exercise intervention and those that did not. Following the adjustment for subgroup comparisons, there were no significant differences in AV̇O_2peak, RV̇O_2peak or PPO (S9). However, there were trends for a greater AV̇O_2peak (p=0.05) and RV̇O_2peak (p=0.06) in studies with matched CPET and intervention modalities in comparison to interventions without matched modalities. A sub-analysis for gait training interventions alone also revealed no subgroup differences between studies that used upper-body or treadmill CPETs to determine CRF outcomes (S10).

3.2.5. Sensitivity analyses

Leave-one-out analyses identified outliers for AV̇O_2peak [42][61,93]. A sensitivity analysis for risk of bias revealed no differences in the pooled effects for low and high risk of bias studies (S8). A sensitivity analysis comparing studies with imputed data via conversion of medians (IQR), extrapolated data from figures, and studies without imputed data revealed no differences in the pooled effects for any outcome. (S8).

3.2.6. Study-design statistical power considerations

Median statistical power and observed effect sizes for each CRF outcome and study design (i.e., pre-post studies compared to RCT interventions relative to controls) are reported in Figure 4. Across each CRF outcome, median statistical power was higher for the RCTs included in the primary meta-analysis in comparison to the pre-post studies. In general, this indicates that the RCT studies were designed to reliably detect a wider range of effect sizes in comparison to the pre-post studies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Firepower plots visualising study-level statistical power for a range of effect sizes between meta-analyses for pre-post studies alone in comparison to RCT studies included in the primary meta-analysis (i.e., exercise interventions relative to control groups) for each cardiorespiratory fitness outcome. Hedges’ g effect sizes were calculated for each meta-analysis and used as the observed effect size, as described by Quintana [54]. (A) Meta-analysis of pre-post studies describing changes in absolute peak oxygen uptake (AV̇O_2peak) had a median power of 62% for detecting an effect size of 0.90, whereas the RCTs had a median power of 86% for detecting an effect size of 1.25. (B) Meta-analysis of pre-post studies describing changes in relative peak oxygen uptake (RV̇O_2peak) had a median power of 41% for detecting an effect size of 0.67, whereas the RCTs had a median power of 91% for detecting an effect size of 1.57. (C) Meta-analysis of pre-post studies describing changes in peak power output (PPO) had a median power of 58% for detecting an effect size of 0.91, whereas the RCTs had a median power of 86% for detecting an effect size of 1.13.

3.2.7. Meta-regression

Model 1 - Participant and injury characteristics

Exercise interventions with a greater mean age of participants were associated with smaller changes in the effect estimates for AV̇O_2peak (p=0.08) and RV̇O_2peak (p=0.01). The coefficients indicate that for every one-year increase in mean age of participants in an exercise intervention, the effect on AV̇O_2peak and RV̇O_2peak decreases on average by 0.003 L/min and 0.041 mL/kg/min, respectively, holding all other covariates constant (Table 1). There were no associations between the other moderator variables included in this model and AV̇O_2peak or RV̇O_2peak. Whilst there were no significant associations between PPO and the other moderator variables (Table 1), there was a trend for an association between PPO and TSI (p=0.18). The coefficient for TSI indicates that for every additional year since injury, the effect on PPO following an exercise intervention decreases by 1.5W on average (Table 1).

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Table 1.

Meta-regression models with adjusted values for each cardiorespiratory fitness outcome.

Model 2 - Exercise intervention and study characteristics

There were no significant associations between the exercise intervention and study characteristics included in model 2 for AV̇O_2peak, RV̇O_2peak, or PPO (Table 1).

3.2.8. Small study effects

Egger’s tests for funnel plot asymmetry were not statistically significant for AV̇O_2peak (Z = -1.20, p = 0.23), RV̇O_2peak (Z = -0.44, p = 0.66), or PPO (Z = 0.76, p = 0.45). Funnel plots are provided in supplementary material (S6).

4. DISCUSSION

This review provides a large evidence-based summary and appraisal on the effects of prescribed and prospective exercise interventions >2 weeks on CRF in individuals with SCI. The results from the primary meta-analysis of RCTs support the role of exercise in improving CRF in this population by 0.16 L/min and 9W in AV̇O_2peak and PPO, respectively. The primary meta-analysis also indicates a clinically meaningful change in RV̇O_2peak of 2.9 mL/kg/min. Subgroup analyses in the secondary, pooled meta-analysis revealed no effects of injury characteristics or exercise intervention parameters on AV̇O_2peak, but an effect of exercise modality and length of intervention on RV̇O_2peak. There were also significant subgroup differences for PPO based on TSI, neurological level of injury, exercise modality, exercise intensity, method of exercise intensity prescription, and frequency of sessions per week. The GRADE assessment including RCTs and pre-post intervention studies revealed ‘Moderate’ certainty in the evidence for improvements in RV̇O_2peak, yet ‘Low’ certainty in the evidence for significant improvements in AV̇O_2peak and PPO.

Following exercise interventions, V̇O_2peak improves in individuals with both acute and chronic SCI. However, this review highlights the need for more exercise interventions in the acute phase post-SCI. Indeed, a recent review by Van der Scheer et al. [35] rated the confidence in the evidence base for exercise in acute SCI as ‘Very Low’, and called for more RCTs to control for the deteriorations in fitness and health occurring almost immediately following SCI. With regards to PPO in the current review, the meta-regression revealed a trend for an association between TSI and changes in PPO, with individuals with long-term injuries exhibiting smaller changes in PPO in comparison to those with relatively newer injuries. The subgroup analysis based on TSI also revealed that individuals with acute SCI exhibit a greater change than individuals with chronic SCI. This may be due to exercise being delivered in combination with standard of care inpatient rehabilitation for individuals with acute injuries, representing an additive effect. Indeed, the secondary meta-analysis with longitudinal observational studies indicates a 6W improvement in PPO with standard of care inpatient rehabilitation alone during the subacute period. This could be influenced by spontaneous motor recovery in the first few months following SCI [105]. Or alternatively, this subacute period may provide a familiarisation effect to novel modalities of exercise that patients were previously unaccustomed to and/or provides a notable stimulus to naive upper-body musculature following a period of bed rest and deconditioning, possibly representing a regression to the mean artefact. Ultimately, more rigorous RCTs are required in the subacute phase post-SCI that compare standard of care versus standard of care plus a specific exercise intervention to truly quantify the independent effects of a prescribed exercise intervention in the inpatient setting.

Exercise results in improved V̇O_2peak regardless of the neurological level of injury. In particular, this review reveals a pooled improvement of 5.9 mL/kg/min in studies that included only individuals with tetraplegia (N=3 interventions). For comparison, there is a considerably larger evidence-base for studies including only individuals with paraplegia (N=31 interventions). A recent systematic review suggested that aerobic exercise results in minimal returns on investment in individuals with tetraplegia, with V̇O_2peak improving on average only 9% following 10-37 weeks of training [106]. However, their review excluded studies with a sample size <10. Consequently, the Dicarlo study [93], which reported a 94% increase in RV̇O_2peak was excluded from their analysis. Whilst the inclusion of this study in the current analysis may have augmented the overall effect, as identified by our leave-one-out analysis, there was nothing untoward in this study to suggest a reason for this exaggerated response. Therefore, our findings indicate that exercise improves CRF in individuals with tetraplegia and that the magnitude of change is not significantly different to individuals with paraplegia.

However, the pooled meta-analysis highlights that individuals with paraplegia (16W) are likely to accrue greater absolute changes in PPO than those with tetraplegia (9W). Typically, higher neurological levels of injury result in a loss of trunk control, motor impairments in the upper-limbs and reduced mechanical efficiency, compared to lower levels of injury [107,108]. Therefore, individuals with tetraplegia may not have the physical or motor capacity to adapt as effectively as individuals with paraplegia, and thus could experience a ceiling effect with training. Indeed, a recent study identified lesion level as a significant predictor of PPO in a group of handcyclists with SCI [109]. To account for baseline motor function differences between individuals with tetraplegia and paraplegia, we determined relative percentage change for studies that included upper-body aerobic exercise interventions only. The relative percentage change was similar between neurological level of injury classifications: 46% tetraplegia (N=1 interventions) vs. 53% paraplegia (N=9 interventions). While only one tetraplegia-only intervention was included in this subgroup analysis [110], normalising for baseline values seems to indicate similar relative magnitudes of change in PPO.

Williams et al. [111] recently demonstrated that individuals with a lower level of injury (<T6) significantly improved PPO compared to individuals with a higher level of injury (≥T6), suggesting a potential role of disrupted cardiovascular control in mediating changes in PPO [112,113]. Whilst methods for ameliorating the reduction in sympathetic cardiovascular control typically associated with injuries ≥T6 have been investigated (e.g., abdominal binding [114], lower-body positive pressure [115], and midodrine [116]), the evidence for an improved CRF is still mixed. A recent case-report has indicated that epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) can safely and effectively restore cardiovascular control and improve CRF [117]. With an explosion in SCS studies over the last few years [118], particularly including transcutaneous SCS, the pairing of exercise with novel and non-invasive neuromodulatory approaches will likely continue to receive considerable research attention. Future, adequately powered, research may want to consider separating participants into paraplegic and tetraplegic groups or dichotomize by injuries above and below T6 to account for differences in sympathetic cardiovascular control. Currently, there is a paucity of studies analysing data in this fashion, which limits our understanding of how neurological level of injury and the degree of impaired sympathetic cardiovascular control influences the magnitude of change in CRF following an exercise intervention. Researchers may want to consider conducting a battery of autonomic nervous system stress tests at baseline (e.g., Valsalva manoeuvre, head-up tilt, sympathetic skin responses etc. [119]), to determine the degree of supraspinal sympathetic disruption rather than relying on a neurological level of injury derived from a motor-sensory examination. This is important as recent research has indicated that cardiovascular instability cannot be predicted by motor-sensory level and completeness of SCI [120].

There were no significant subgroup differences in CRF based on injury severity. However, the subgroup analysis suggests that individuals with a motor-incomplete SCI may not yield PPO improvements of the same magnitude as individuals with a motor-complete SCI. This is most likely due to the majority of motor-incomplete studies implementing gait training as its exercise modality, which we reveal is the least effective modality for improving CRF. The gait training interventions that measured PPO (N=2 interventions) used arm-crank ergometry (ACE) as the CPET modality, demonstrating no transfer effect from lower-body to upper-body exercise. During data extraction, reviewers noted poor reporting of injury severity in a number of studies. Whilst this may be due to older studies having used alternative severity scales (e.g., International Stoke Mandeville Games Federation or Frankel), researchers should endeavour to perform an International Standards for Neurological Classification of SCI (ISNCSCI) exam during screening, and subsequently report an AIS grade, to enable better comparisons to be made between injury severities in the future.

Van der Scheer et al. [35] concluded that there was high certainty in the evidence that exercise interventions ≥2 weeks can improve CRF in young and middle-aged adults. However, they revealed that there was a lack of studies exploring the effects of exercise in older adults with SCI (>65 years). The oldest mean age included in our review is 57.9 years [121], and thus supports their call for more research to be conducted in the older SCI population. Interestingly, our meta-regression identified that exercise interventions with a higher mean age were associated with smaller changes in V̇O_2peak, suggesting that older adults do not achieve the same CRF benefits as younger or middle-aged adults. This is not surprising given the progressive physical deconditioning that occurs naturally with age, as previously shown in the non-injured population [122]. Research indicates that SCI represents a model of advanced ageing [123], with the ageing process being exacerbated in individuals with SCI possibly due to diminished mobility independence resulting in physical deconditioning. Older adults with SCI find it harder to change body position, transfer, and move around independently in comparison to younger adults with SCI [124]. Moreover, it has been suggested that older adults with SCI do not perform volumes or intensities of leisure time physical activity required to achieve fitness benefits [125]. These changes will likely result in reduced incidental physical activity outside of a prescribed exercise intervention. Ageing skeletal muscle is also susceptible to mitochondrial dysfunction, which may be related to chronic inflammation (e.g., “inflammaging”), possibly explaining the diminished responses in CRF for older adults with SCI. Future research may want to investigate optimal strategies for improving CRF in older adults. Moreover, there is a need for more longitudinal studies that explore the age-related decline in CRF in the SCI population, and whether this is accelerated relative to the non-injured population.

Despite a number of recent reviews summarising the effects of specific exercise modalities on the change in CRF following SCI, including aerobic ACE [126], FES-cycling [36], and aerobic plus muscle strength training (mixed multimodal) interventions [127], to the best of our knowledge our secondary, pooled meta-analysis is the first to directly compare the effects of a wide range of exercise modalities on the change in CRF in individuals with SCI. This review revealed there was a significant subgroup difference in RV̇O_2peak, with the greatest changes gained via upper-body aerobic exercise or resistance training. The change in RV̇O_2peak for upper-body aerobic exercise in the current review (21%) is equivalent to the average 21% improvement reported in a recent systematic review on the effects of ACE in chronic SCI [126]. Whilst the current review did not exclusively investigate ACE, it is evident that aerobic, volitional upper-body exercise training can improve CRF in individuals with SCI. Activating larger amounts of skeletal muscle mass via FES exercise interventions also appears to improve RV̇O_2peak, yet it is noteworthy that more accessible and less expensive training modalities such as aerobic and resistance training may yield similar or even greater increases in RV̇O_2peak, despite utilising less muscle mass. Additionally, RV̇O_2peak improves following multimodal/hybrid exercise interventions, which challenges a 2015 review reporting inconclusive findings on the effects of combined upper-body aerobic and muscle strength training on CRF [127]. Yet, as the current review included a wide range of interventions not restricted to the upper-body (e.g., aquatic treadmill [63], hybrid cycling [64,69,128], multimodal exercises [129,130], etc.), it is recommended that more research is conducted to delineate whether the improvements in RV̇O_2peak with multimodal/hybrid exercise interventions are due to the combination of upper- and lower-body exercise modalities, or due to concurrent training modalities that predominantly use the upper-body (e.g., aerobic plus muscle strength training). Finally, both gait training and behaviour change interventions appear less effective at improving RV̇O_2peak and PPO.

Aerobic, upper-body exercise and resistance training modalities demonstrate the greatest improvements in PPO, by 15W and 20W, respectively. It is perhaps unsurprising that resistance training resulted in the largest change in PPO given that these interventions included upper-body exercises prescribed to increase muscular strength, as shown by Jacobs et al. [131]. Volitional exercise, as opposed to activity-based therapy modalities (i.e., interventions that provide activation of the neuromuscular system below the level of lesion with the goal of retraining the nervous system, such as FES and gait training), may therefore be more beneficial at improving PPO. Ultimately, these improvements have important ramifications for individuals with SCI that are dependent on performing functional upper-body movements such as transfers or wheelchair propulsion [99,103], and may lead to increased quality of life with more functional independence [132].

Several studies directly compared the effects of specific exercise modalities on the change in CRF [42,63,86]. Notably, Gorman et al. [63] demonstrated that there were no transfer effects from a robotic treadmill exercise intervention to ACE performance in a CPET. This review also demonstrates a trend for greater changes in RV̇O_2peak are likely achieved when the CPET modality is matched to the intervention (S9). Therefore, researchers should endeavour to match the CPET modality to their exercise intervention, or at the very least be careful when interpreting changes in CRF when using different modalities.

The current SCI-specific exercise guidelines recommend that exercise should be performed at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity [21]. A recent overview of systematic reviews also advocated the use of moderate-to-vigorous intensity for improving aerobic fitness [133]. The current secondary, pooled meta-analysis demonstrates robust improvements across all CRF outcomes for interventions prescribing exercise at this particular intensity. Furthermore, the secondary meta-analysis including cross-sectional studies reveals significant associations of a greater magnitude between MVPA and CRF, as compared to lower-intensity activity. Despite this, our classification of moderate-to-vigorous exercise intensity spans two of the ACSM exercise intensity thresholds (S3). There may be considerable variation in the actual intensity performed by participants given the noticeable range across the two thresholds (e.g., 46-90% V̇O_2peak, 64-95% HR_peak, 12-17 RPE etc.). Therefore, individuals with SCI and exercise practitioners should be cautious when prescribing such a broad exercise intensity.

The secondary meta-analysis comparing RCT exercise intensities reveals similar changes in CRF outcomes between moderate- and vigorous-intensity interventions. This is in agreement with a previous review [30] and supports the viewpoint from a special communication on high-intensity interval training (HIIT) [31], which suggested that vigorous-intensity exercise is more time efficient and may result in similar if not superior CRF and skeletal muscle oxidative capacity improvements in comparison to moderate-intensity exercise. Interestingly, in a response to a Letter-to-the-Editor [27], the SCI-specific exercise guideline developers acknowledge the need for shorter, effective protocols to be documented in the literature [134]. Furthermore, recent evidence has suggested that HIIT may be more enjoyable than moderate-intensity exercise for individuals with SCI [135], and so this form of training may offer a more time efficient and readily available alternative to moderate-intensity protocols. In the current review, a number of HIIT-based arm-crank ergometry, wheelchair propulsion, and FES hybrid cycling and skiing interventions demonstrated improvements in CRF [69,92,128,136–140]. The potential of “real-world” strategies such as virtual HIIT have also been discussed in a recent review by McMillan et al. [141]. Future exercise interventions should look to compare the effects of different HIIT modalities/protocols (i.e., virtual home-based HIIT versus supervised arm-crank HIIT, the most appropriate number and/or length of intervals and recovery periods, vigorous or supramaximal exercise intensities) before concrete recommendations can be made on the most optimal HIIT prescription for improving CRF. Whilst efforts are ongoing to corroborate the safety and feasibility of HIIT [32,92,142] both researchers and individuals with SCI should be vigilant in identifying risks associated with HIIT such as shoulder discomfort or pain, skin irritation or pressure sores caused by abrasive movements, or increased spasticity, along with monitoring for post-exercise hypotension [143]. As higher-intensity exercise generates a greater metabolic heat load than lower-intensity exercise, which increases core body temperature, considerations should be made for individuals with higher neurological levels of injury exercising at a high-intensity and/or in warm to hot ambient temperatures given their greater likelihood of experiencing thermoregulatory issues [144]. General contraindications for performing HIIT have been discussed in the non-injured population [145] yet they also apply for individuals with SCI.

This review reveals that RV̇O_2peak improves regardless of the method used to prescribe exercise intensity. With regards to PPO, subgroup difference indicates that the magnitude of change is greater when prescribing intensity via indices of HR (i.e., %HR_peak, %HR_max, %HRR) or V̇O₂ (i.e., %V̇O_2peak, %V̇O_2reserve), compared to RPE and workload. A recent systematic review concluded that exercise interventions using RPE to prescribe relative exercise intensities improved PPO in individuals with SCI [146]. Previous research has revealed that RPE results in inter-individual responses to exercise, with the potential for two individuals to perform the same bout of exercise either above or below lactate threshold despite being prescribed the same perceptually regulated intensity, which prevents the development of SCI-specific RPE recommendations [147]. These differences identified in our meta-analysis may also be due to individuals with SCI being unaccustomed to subjective measures of exertion. Accordingly, there have been calls for better reporting of the standardisation and familiarisation procedures used for RPE [146] and have only tentatively recommended its use before the evidence base is expanded [148]. Therefore, it seems plausible to suggest that the blunted improvements in PPO with intensity prescribed via RPE, as compared to other prescription methods, may have resulted from insufficient familiarisation before an exercise intervention.

Although HR and V̇O₂ have long been used to prescribe exercise intensity, these approaches can result in large training ranges and ignore individual metabolic responses. Particularly, issues may arise with using HR for individuals with a neurological level of injury ≥T6, given that these individuals typically exhibit a lower HR_peak [149]. The use of fixed percentages (i.e, %HR_peak, %V̇O_2peak) in the non-injured population has been questioned [150] and has recently been investigated in individuals with SCI, whereby Hutchinson et al. [56] showed that fixed %HR_peak and %V̇O_2peak could not guarantee a homogenous domain-specific exercise intensity prescription. Notably, individuals were spread across moderate, heavy and severe domains at the “moderate” and “vigorous” intensity classifications; thereby questioning whether the “moderate-to-vigorous” terminology used in the SCI-specific exercise guidelines is suitable for adults with SCI.

Given that prescribing exercise intensity via HR and V̇O₂ can typically be resource and cost-intensive, there is some scope for using RPE as a cheaper and more practical method for community-based exercise prescription. However, this may not be as effective as other objective methods. Future research should aim to identify the optimal methods of exercise intensity prescription, as well as consider revisiting the current “moderate-to-vigorous intensity” recommendations. Moreover, further research may want to consider using traditional intensity anchors (e.g., the gas exchange threshold, critical power or lactate threshold) rather than prescribing exercise relative to physiological thresholds to see whether this results in more homogeneous CRF responses to exercise, given research in non-injured individuals suggests this may increase the precision of exercise intensity prescription [151,152]. However, it is worth acknowledging that it is not always possible to identify such traditional intensity anchors in individuals with higher levels of SCI [153,154].

Subgroup analyses based on frequency of sessions and exercise volume reveal no differences in RV̇O_2peak, thereby supporting the minimal volume of exercise required to attain CRF benefits in individuals with SCI. Furthermore, although there are no statistically significant subgroup differences for PPO based on exercise volume, there is a greater magnitude of change observed for individuals exercising 90-149 min/wk in comparison to 40-89 min/wk (12W vs 7W change, respectively). A greater weekly exercise volume may therefore accrue greater changes in PPO and, as already described, may be important in improving the capacity to perform daily tasks such as bed or wheelchair transfers [99,103]. Although changes in CRF are similar between each exercise volume subgroup, and thus corresponding exercise guidelines, the secondary meta-analysis on cross-sectional cohorts indicates a significant cumulative impact of prolonged participation in physical activity and exercise. To support this point, a sensitivity analysis revealed a larger difference in RV̇O_2peak between inactive individuals and elite athletes, compared to between inactive and active individuals, suggesting that those who exercise more exhibit a greater CRF. Indeed, two cross-sectional association studies [40,98], reported significantly higher CRF in individuals with SCI that were habitually performing greater volumes of physical activity. Looking forward, longitudinal RCTs with multiple intervention arms would be the best way to explore dose-response changes with regards to differing volumes of exercise, as has been done in the non-injured population [155–158].

Subgroup analysis based on length of intervention indicated that exercise interventions of 12 weeks or less yield greater changes in RV̇O_2peak than those lasting >12 weeks. This may be explained by compliance and adherence issues during prolonged interventions (i.e., >12 weeks). Indeed, the two behaviour change studies included in this subgroup analysis observed minimal changes in RV̇O_2peak following 16 [82] and 24 weeks [39]. This perhaps emphasises the benefit of short and intensive exercise interventions ≤12 weeks as well as the need for supervised exercise sessions in prolonged interventions to ensure compliance and meaningful changes in RV̇O_2peak.

Adverse events were reported for at least 3.7% of the total included participants, with the majority of events related to skin irritation, pressure sores or ulcers. Qualitatively, there was no particular exercise modality that suggested an increased risk for an adverse event, but higher-intensity exercise appeared to reveal more adverse events, albeit being swayed by one study in particular [130]. Reporting was poor in a number of studies with reviewers at times unable to determine the exact number of events per participant. Furthermore, there is generally a lack of follow-up assessments following exercise interventions, so it is currently unknown whether there are any detrimental long-term effects of exercise in the SCI population. Going forward, researchers are encouraged to follow a standardised adverse event reporting procedure (including serious and non-serious adverse events) and ensure that they are transparent with reporting of both the nature and the total numbers of each event, either related or unrelated to the exercise intervention.

5. CONCLUSION

This systematic review with meta-analysis provides an updated, evidence-based summary of the effects of exercise interventions on CRF in individuals with SCI. Based on evidence of moderate-to-low certainty, exercise interventions >2 weeks are associated with significant improvements in CRF, and in particular, a clinically meaningful change in RV̇O_2peak. Subgroup comparisons identified that upper-body, aerobic exercise and resistance training appear the most effective at improving RV̇O_2peak and PPO. Furthermore, acutely-injured, paraplegic individuals, exercising at a moderate-to-vigorous intensity, prescribed via V̇O₂ or HR (at a minimum of either 46% V̇O_2peak, 64% HR_peak, or 40% HRR/V̇O_2reserve, in accordance with ACSM classifications), for more than 3 sessions/week will likely experience the greatest change in PPO. Exercise interventions up to 12-weeks are also most likely to lead to improvements in RV̇O_2peak. The meta-regression revealed that older adults may experience smaller changes in V̇O_2peak following an exercise intervention. Importantly, there is an ever-growing need for studies to establish a dose-response relationship between exercise and CRF in the SCI population to determine the most optimal form of exercise prescription to reduce the wide-ranging consequences typically associated with SCI. To improve the certainty of evidence in the field moving forward, we call for the development of an SCI-specific reporting template for exercise interventions, as well as encourage researchers to pre-register and/or publish protocol papers for prospective clinical exercise trials. Researchers should also consider whether injury characteristics or participant demographics (e.g., impact of neurological level of injury/severity on motor-sensory or autonomic cardiovascular control, age, sex) influence changes in CRF outcomes with a period of exercise training.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Supplementary material 1 (S1): PRISMA Checklist

Supplementary file 2 (S2): Systematic Review Search Strategy

Supplementary file 3 (S3): Description of Exercise Intensity Classifications as per the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) guidelines

Supplementary file 4 (S4): Calculated Correlation Factors

Supplementary file 5 (S5): Primary meta-analysis (RCT interventions relative to controls)

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled RCTs (exercise intervention vs. true-world control or standard of care)

2. Summary of the individual RCTs included in the review

3. Quality assessment rating for each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool

4. Forest plots and funnel plots for each CRF outcome

5. References

Supplementary file 6 (S4): Change in CRF outcomes in response to prospective, well-characterised exercise interventions lasting >2 weeks from pre-post and RCT studies (Secondary, pooled meta-analysis)

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled exercise interventions from pre-post and RCT studies

2. Summary statistics of the subgroup analyses

3. Figure visualising the worldwide coverage of exercise interventions included in the secondary, pooled meta-analysis

4. Summary of the individual studies included in the review

5. Forest and funnel plots for change in each CRF outcome for each subgroup comparison (time since injury, neurological level of injury, injury severity, exercise modality, length of intervention, relative exercise intensity, method of exercise intensity prescription, frequency of exercise sessions, and exercise volume)

6. Quality assessment ratings for each pre-post study included in the primary meta-analysis

7. Risk of bias for each RCT intervention arm included in the primary meta-analysis

8. References

Supplementary file 7 (S7): Adverse events

Supplementary file 8 (S8): Sensitivity analyses

Supplementary file 9 (S9): CPET vs. exercise intervention modality

1. Forest plots for each CRF outcome

Supplementary file 10 (S10): Gait-training sub-analysis

1. Forest plots for each CRF outcome

Supplementary file 11 (S11): Cross-sectional cohort comparisons summary (secondary meta-analysis)

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled cohort comparisons

2. Summary of the individual studies included in the review

3. Quality assessment rating for each study using the NIH tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies

4. Forest plots and funnel plots for each CRF outcome

5. Sensitivity analysis on RV̇O_2peak

6. References

Supplementary file 12 (S12): Cross-sectional associations between physical activity and CRF outcomes

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled association comparisons

2. Summary of the individual studies included in the review

3. Quality assessment rating for each study using the NIH tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies

4. Visualisation of correlation coefficients between physical activity dimensions and CRF outcomes across included studies

5. References

Supplementary file 13 (S13): Observational studies (secondary meta-analysis)

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled observational studies

2. Summary of the individual studies included in the review

3. Quality assessment rating for each study using the NIH tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies

4. Forest plots and funnel plots for each CRF outcome

5. References

Supplementary file 14 (S14): RCTs intensity comparisons (secondary meta-analysis)

1. Overview of participant demographics and injury characteristics for the pooled RCTs comparing the effects of different exercise intensities

2. Summary of the individual RCTs comparing exercise intensity included in the review

3. Quality assessment rating for each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 too1

4. Forest plots and funnel plots for each CRF outcome

5. References

7. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1RM

One repetition maximum Arm-crank ergometry

ACSM

American College of Sports Medicine

AIS

American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale

AV̇O2peak

Absolute peak oxygen uptake

CENTRAL

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

CERT

Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template

CI

Confidence interval

CPET

Cardiopulmonary exercise test

CRF

Cardiorespiratory fitness

CVD

Cardiovascular disease

EMBASE

Excerpta Medica Database

FES

Functional electrical stimulation

GRADE

Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation

HIIT

High-intensity interval training

HR

Heart rate

HRmax

Maximum heart rate (age-predicted)

HRpeak

Peak heart rate

HRR

Heart rate reserve

IQR

Interquartile range

ISNCSCI

International Standards for Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury

LTPA

Leisure time physical activity

MET

Metabolic equivalent

MTP

Maximal tolerated power

MVPA

Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity

PPO

Peak power output

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews

RCT

Randomised-controlled trial

RoB 2

The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool

RPE

Rating of perceived exertion

RV̇O2peak

Relative peak oxygen uptake

SCI

Spinal cord injury

SCS

Spinal cord stimulation

SD

Standard deviation

TIDieR

Template for Intervention Description and Replication

TSI

Time since injury

V̇O2

Oxygen uptake

V̇O2peak

Peak oxygen uptake

V̇O2reserve

Reserve oxygen uptake

W

Watts

WMD

Weighted mean difference