Gait and Balance Outcome Measures are Responsive in Severely Impaired Individuals Undergoing Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation

Standardized measurement of balance and mobility post-stroke: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

BACKGROUND

Mobility is a key priority for stroke survivors. Worldwide consensus of standardized outcome instruments for measuring mobility recovery after stroke is an essential milestone to optimize the quality of stroke rehabilitation and recovery studies and to enable data synthesis across trials.

METHODS

Using a standardized methodology, which involved convening of 13 worldwide experts in the field of mobility rehabilitation, consensus was established through an a priori defined survey-based approach followed by group discussions. The group agreed on balance- and mobility-related definitions and recommended a core set of outcome measure instruments for lower extremity motor function, balance and mobility, biomechanical metrics, and technologies for measuring quality of movement.

RESULTS

Selected measures included the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment lower extremity subscale for motor function, the Trunk Impairment Scale for sitting balance, and the Mini Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for standing balance. The group recommended the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC, 0-5) for walking independence, the 10-meter Walk Test (10 mWT) for walking speed, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT) for walking endurance, and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for complex walking. An FAC score of less than three should be used to determine the need for an additional standing test (FAC < 3, add BBS to Mini-BESTest) or the feasibility to assess walking (FAC < 3, 10 mWT, 6 MWT, and DGI are "not testable"). In addition, recommendations are given for prioritized kinetic and kinematic metrics to be investigated that measure recovery of movement quality of standing balance and walking, as well as for assessment protocols and preferred equipment to be used.

CONCLUSIONS

The present recommendations of measures, metrics, technology, and protocols build on previous consensus meetings of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance to guide the research community to improve the validity and comparability between stroke recovery and rehabilitation studies as a prerequisite for building high-quality, standardized "big data" sets. Ultimately, these recommendations could lead to high-quality, participant-specific data sets to aid the progress toward precision medicine in stroke rehabilitation.

Standardized measurement of balance and mobility post-stroke: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

BACKGROUND

Mobility is a key priority for stroke survivors. Worldwide consensus of standardized outcome instruments for measuring mobility recovery after stroke is an essential milestone to optimize the quality of stroke rehabilitation and recovery studies and to enable data synthesis across trials.

METHODS

Using a standardized methodology, which involved convening of 13 worldwide experts in the field of mobility rehabilitation, consensus was established through an a priori defined survey-based approach followed by group discussions. The group agreed on balance- and mobility-related definitions and recommended a core set of outcome measure instruments for lower extremity motor function, balance and mobility, biomechanical metrics, and technologies for measuring quality of movement.

RESULTS

Selected measures included the Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment lower extremity subscale for motor function, the Trunk Impairment Scale for sitting balance, and the Mini Balance Evaluation System Test (Mini-BESTest) and Berg Balance Scale (BBS) for standing balance. The group recommended the Functional Ambulation Category (FAC, 0-5) for walking independence, the 10-meter Walk Test (10 mWT) for walking speed, the 6-Minute Walk Test (6 MWT) for walking endurance, and the Dynamic Gait Index (DGI) for complex walking. An FAC score of less than three should be used to determine the need for an additional standing test (FAC < 3, add BBS to Mini-BESTest) or the feasibility to assess walking (FAC < 3, 10 mWT, 6 MWT, and DGI are "not testable"). In addition, recommendations are given for prioritized kinetic and kinematic metrics to be investigated that measure recovery of movement quality of standing balance and walking, as well as for assessment protocols and preferred equipment to be used.

CONCLUSIONS

The present recommendations of measures, metrics, technology, and protocols build on previous consensus meetings of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance to guide the research community to improve the validity and comparability between stroke recovery and rehabilitation studies as a prerequisite for building high-quality, standardized "big data" sets. Ultimately, these recommendations could lead to high-quality, participant-specific data sets to aid the progress toward precision medicine in stroke rehabilitation.

Increasing the Amount and Intensity of Stepping Training During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Improves Locomotor and Non-Locomotor Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of traditional rehabilitation interventions to improve locomotion post-stroke, including providing multiple exercises targeting impairments and activity limitations, is uncertain. Emerging evidence rather suggests attempts to prioritize stepping practice at higher cardiovascular intensities may facilitate greater locomotor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The present study was designed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of high-intensity training (HIT) to usual care during inpatient rehabilitation post-stroke.

METHODS

Changes in stepping activity and functional outcomes were compared over 9 months during usual-care (n = 131 patients < 2 months post-stroke), during an 18-month transition phase with attempts to implement HIT (n = 317), and over 12 months following HIT implementation (n = 208). The transition phase began with didactic and hands-on education, and continued with meetings, mentoring, and audit and feedback. Fidelity metrics included percentage of sessions prioritizing gait interventions and documenting intensity. Demographics, training measures, and outcomes were compared across phases using linear or logistic regression analysis, Kruskal-Wallis tests, or χ² analysis.

RESULTS

Across all phases, admission scores were similar except for balance (usual-care>HIT; P < .02). Efforts to prioritize stepping and achieve targeted intensities during HIT vs transition or usual-care phases led to increased steps/day (P < .01). During HIT, gains in 10-m walk [HIT median = 0.13 m/s (interquartile range: 0-0.35) vs usual-care = 0.07 m/s (0-0.24), P = .01] and 6-min walk [50 (9.3-116) vs 2.1 (0-56) m, P < .01] were observed, with additional improvements in transfers and stair-climbing.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater efforts to prioritize walking and reach higher intensities during HIT led to increased steps/day, resulting in greater gains in locomotor and non-locomotor outcomes.