Eligibility Screening for an Early Upper Limb Stroke Rehabilitation Study

Accuracy and Reliability of Remote Categorization of Upper Limb Outcome After Stroke

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing need for motor assessments after stroke that can be performed quickly and remotely. The Fast Outcome Categorization of the Upper Limb after Stroke-4 (FOCUS-4) assessment remotely classifies upper limb outcome into 1 of 4 categories after stroke and was developed via retrospective analysis of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) scores.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate the accuracy and reliability of FOCUS-4 assessments for categorizing upper limb outcome after stroke when administered remotely during a videocall compared to an in-person ARAT.

METHODS

Data were collected from 26 participants at 3 months post-stroke (3M), 27 participants at 6 months post-stroke (6M), and 56 participants at the chronic stage of stroke (>6M). Participants performed an in-person ARAT and a remote FOCUS-4 assessment administered during a videocall, and accuracy was evaluated by comparing the upper limb outcome categories. Participants at the chronic stage of stroke also performed a second remote FOCUS-4 assessment to assess between-day reliability.

RESULTS

Overall accuracy of the remote FOCUS-4 assessment was 88% at 3M and 96% at 6M. Overall accuracy of the first and second remote FOCUS-4 assessments at the chronic stage was 75% and 79%, respectively. Reliability of the FOCUS-4 assessment at the chronic stage was 82%. The remote FOCUS-4 assessment was most accurate and reliable for participants with mild or severe upper limb functional impairment.

CONCLUSIONS

The remote FOCUS-4 assessment has potential to classify upper limb functional capacity or to screen possible participants for stroke trials, but external validation is required.

Prevalence of Arm Weakness, Pre-Stroke Outcomes and Other Post-Stroke Impairments Using Routinely Collected Clinical Data on an Acute Stroke Unit

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of upper limb motor weakness early post-stroke may be changing, which can have clinical and research implications. Our primary aim was to describe the prevalence of upper limb motor weakness early post-stroke, with a secondary aim to contextualize this prevalence by describing pre-stroke outcomes, other post-stroke impairments, functional activities, and discharge destination.

METHODS

This cross-sectional observational study extracted clinical data from confirmed stroke patients admitted to a metropolitan stroke unit over 15-months. The primary upper limb weakness measure was Shoulder Abduction and Finger Extension (SAFE) score. Demographics (eg, age), clinical characteristics (eg, stroke severity), pre-stroke outcomes (eg, clinical frailty), other post-stroke impairments (eg, command following), functional activities (eg, ambulation), and discharge destination were also extracted.

RESULTS

A total of 463 participants had a confirmed stroke and SAFE score. One-third of patients received ≥1 acute medical intervention(s). Nearly one-quarter of patients were classified as frail pre-stroke. Upper limb weakness (SAFE≤8) was present in 35% [95% CI: 30%-39%] at a median of 1-day post-stroke, with 22% presenting with mild-moderate weakness (SAFE5-8). The most common other impairments were upper limb coordination (46%), delayed recall (41%), and upper limb sensation (26%). After a median 3-day acute stroke stay, 52% of the sample were discharged home.

CONCLUSION

Upper limb weakness was present in just over a third (35%) of the sample early post-stroke. Data on pre-stroke outcomes and the prevalence of other post-stroke impairments highlights the complexity and heterogeneity of stroke recovery. Further research is required to tease out meaningful recovery phenotypes and their implications.

Quo Vadis, Amadeo Hand Robot? A Randomized Study with a Hand Recovery Predictive Model in Subacute Stroke

BACKGROUND

Early identification of hand-prognosis-factors at patient's admission could help to select optimal synergistic rehabilitation programs based on conventional (COHT) or robot-assisted (RAT) therapies.

METHODS

In this bi-phase cross-over prospective study, 58 stroke patients were enrolled in two randomized groups. Both groups received same treatments A + B (A = 36 COHT sessions for 10 weeks; B = 36 RAT sessions for 10 weeks; 45 min/session; 3 to 5 times per week). Outcome repeated measures by blinded assessors included FMUL, BBT, NHPT, Amadeo Robot (AHR) and AMPS. Statistical comparisons by Pearson's rank correlations and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni posthoc tests, with size effects and statistic power, were reported. Multiple backward linear regression models were used to predict the variability of sensorimotor and functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Isolated COHT or RAT treatments improved hand function at 3 months. While "higher hand paresis at admission" affected to sensorimotor and functional outcomes, "laterality of injury" did not seem to affect the recovery of the hand. Kinetic-kinematic parameters of robot allowed creating a predictive model of hand recovery at 3 and 6 months from 1st session.

CONCLUSIONS

Hand impairment is an important factor in define sensorimotor and functional outcomes, but not lesion laterality, to predict hand recovery.

Effectiveness and Success Factors of Bilateral Arm Training After Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Bilateral arm training (BAT) presents as a promising approach in upper extremity (UE) rehabilitation after a stroke as it may facilitate neuroplasticity. However, the effectiveness of BAT is inconclusive, and no systematic reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the impact of different factors on the outcomes of BAT. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (1) compare the effects of bilateral arm training (BAT) with unilateral arm training (UAT) and conventional therapy (CT) on the upper limb (UL) motor impairments and functional performance post-stroke, and (2) investigate the different contributing factors that may influence the success of BAT. A comprehensive literature search was performed in five databases. Randomized control trials (RCTs) that met inclusion criteria were selected and assessed for methodological qualities. Data relating to outcome measures, characteristics of participants (stroke chronicity and severity), and features of intervention (type of BAT and dose) were extracted for meta-analysis. With 25 RCTs meeting the inclusion criteria, BAT demonstrated significantly greater improvements in motor impairments as measured by Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) than CT (MD = 3.94, p = < 0.001), but not in functional performance as measured by the pooled outcomes of Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Box and Block Test (BBT), and the time component of Motor Function Test (WMFT-time) (SMD = 0.28, p = 0.313). The superior motor impairment effects of BAT were associated with recruiting mildly impaired individuals in the chronic phase of stroke (MD = 6.71, p < 0.001), and applying a higher dose of intervention (MD = 6.52, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that bilateral functional task training (BFTT) improves both motor impairments (MD = 7.84, p < 0.001) and functional performance (SMD = 1.02, p = 0.049). No significant differences were detected between BAT and UAT for motor impairment (MD = -0.90, p = 0.681) or functional performance (SMD = -0.09, p = 0.457). Thus, our meta-analysis indicates that BAT may be more beneficial than CT in addressing post-stroke UL motor impairment, particularly in the chronic phase with mild UL paresis. The success of BAT may be dose-dependent, and higher doses of intervention may be required. BFTT appears to be a valuable form of BAT that could be integrated into stroke rehabilitation programs. BAT and UAT are generally equivalent in improving UL motor impairments and functional performance.

Challenges of Estimating Accurate Prevalence of Arm Weakness Early After Stroke

Background. Recent studies have reported lower statistics of upper limb (UL) weakness (48-57%) compared to widely cited values collected over 2 decades ago (70-80%). Objective. To explore potential factors contributing to the accuracy of prevalence values of UL weakness using a case study from a single regional centre. Methods. All patients admitted to the acute stroke unit with suspected diagnosis of stroke were screened from February 2016 to August 2017. Upper limb weakness was captured (a) prospectively using the Shoulder Abduction and Finger Extension (SAFE) score performed by unit physical therapists within 7 days post-stroke and (b) retrospectively via chart review using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) arm score at admission and 24 hours post-admission. Results. A total of 656 patients were admitted with a first-ever stroke, and 621 (95%) individuals were administered the SAFE score. A total of 40% of individuals had UL weakness using the SAFE score (SAFE ≤8) at a mean time of 1.9 (SD 1.5) days post-stroke. In the same sample, 57% and 49% had UL weakness using the admission and 24-hour post-admission NIHSS arm score, respectively. Conclusions. The accuracy of population-level UL weakness prevalence values can be affected by weakness measure and score cut-off, time post-stroke weakness is captured, sample characteristics and use of single or multiple sites. Researchers using prevalence values for clinical trial planning should consider these attributes when using prevalence data for estimating recruitment rates and resource needs.

Why Are Stroke Rehabilitation Trial Recruitment Rates in Single Digits?

Background: Recruitment of patients in early subacute rehabilitation trials (<30 days post-stroke) presents unique challenges compared to conventional stroke trials recruiting individuals >6 months post-stroke. Preclinical studies suggest treatments be initiated sooner after stroke, thus requiring stroke rehabilitation trials be conducted within days post-stroke. How do specific inclusion and exclusion criteria affect trial recruitment rates for early stroke rehabilitation trials?

Objectives: Provide estimates of trial recruitment based on screening and enrollment data from a phase II early stroke rehabilitation trial.

Methods: CPASS, a phase II intervention trial screened ischemic stroke patients in acute care (18-months, N = 395) and inpatient rehabilitation (22-months, N = 673). Patients were stratified by upper extremity (UE) impairment into mild (NIHSS motor arm = 0, 1); moderate (NIHSS = 2, 3); severe (NIHSS = 4) and numbers of patients disqualified due to CPASS exclusion criteria determined. We also examined if a motor-specific evaluation (Action Research Arm Test, ARAT) increases the pool of eligible patients disqualified by the NIHSS motor arm item.

Results: CPASS recruitment in acute care (5.3%) and inpatient rehabilitation (5%) was comparable to prior trials. In acute care, a short stay (7–17-days), prior stroke (13.5% in moderately; 13.2% in severely impaired) disqualified the majority. In inpatient rehabilitation, the majority (40.8%) were excluded for “too mild” impairment. The next majority were disqualified for reaching inpatient rehabilitation “too late” to participate in an early stroke trial (15% in moderately; 24% in severely impaired). Mean ARAT in the “too mild” showed significant impairment and potential to benefit from participation in select UE rehabilitation trials.

Conclusions: Screening of ischemic stroke patients while they are still in acute care is crucial to successful recruitment for early stroke rehabilitation trials. A significant proportion of eligible patients are lost to “short length of stay” in acute care, and arrive to inpatient rehabilitation “too late” for an early rehabilitation trial. Additional screening of mildly impaired patients using a motor function specific scale will benefit the trial recruitment and generalizability.

Trial Registration Number:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02235974.

Does Measurement of Corticospinal Tract Involvement Add Value to Clinical Behavioral Biomarkers in Predicting Motor Recovery after Stroke?

Background

The prediction of motor recovery after stroke is an important issue, and various prediction models have been proposed using either clinical behavioral or neurological biomarkers. This study sought to identify the effects of clinical behavioral biomarkers combined with corticospinal tract (CST) injury measurement on the prediction of motor recovery after stroke.

Methods

The region of interest was drawn on the normalized brain magnetic resonance imaging scans of patients with first-ever unilateral hemispheric stroke, and the degree of CST injury was calculated in a total of 67 such subjects. Patients who had initial minor deficits and showed a ceiling effect on motor recovery were excluded. To predict the follow-up Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) scores, correlation and regression analyses were performed using various clinical behavioral biomarkers, including age, sex, lesion location, and initial FMA scores and CST injury measurements.

Results

Only the initial FMA-upper extremity (UE) score was statistically correlated with the follow-up FMA-UE score at ≥2 months after the onset (adjusted R 2 = 0.626), and the relationship between CST injury and follow-up FMA-UE score was unclear (n = 53). Hierarchical clustering between the initial and follow-up FMA-UE scores showed three clusters. After exclusion of a cluster with an initial FMA-UE ≥ 35, the prediction of the follow-up FMA-UE score was possible by incorporating the initial FMA-UE score and CST injury measurements (n = 39). However, the explanatory power decreased (adjusted R 2 = 0.445), and the unique contribution of the CST injury (10.1%) was lower than that of the initial FMA-UE score (26.7%). With respect to the FMA-lower extremity score, CST injury was not related to recovery.

Conclusions

Motor recovery of the upper and lower extremities after stroke could be predicted using the initial FMA score. CST injury was significant for the prediction of motor recovery of the upper extremity in patients with severe initial motor deficits (FMA-UE < 35); however, its portion of prediction of motor recovery was low. The prediction of poststroke motor recovery using the initial motor deficit was not improved by the addition of CST injury measurements.

Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation

Stroke remains a leading cause of adult disability and the demand for stroke rehabilitation services is growing. Substantial advances are yet to be made in stroke rehabilitation practice to meet this demand and improve patient outcomes relative to current care. Several large intervention trials targeting motor recovery report that participants' motor performance improved, but to a similar extent for both the intervention and control groups in most trials. These neutral results might reflect an absence of additional benefit from the tested interventions or the many challenges of designing and doing large stroke rehabilitation trials. Strategies for improving trial quality include new approaches to the selection of patients, control interventions, and endpoint measures. Although stroke rehabilitation research strives for better trials, interventions, and outcomes, rehabilitation practices continue to help patients regain independence after stroke.