Rehabilitation of the upper extremity and basic activities of daily living in the first month after ischemic stroke: an international cohort comparison study

Inpatient rehabilitation has been traditionally employed in developed countries, while in developing countries, outpatient rehabilitation is the rule. The purpose of this study was to compare the patterns of recovery of upper extremity (UE) function, global impairment and independence in activities of daily living (ADL) during the first month after ischemic stroke in inpatient (United States) and outpatient (Brazil) rehabilitation settings

Interrater Reliability of the Wolf Motor Function Test–Functional Ability Scale: Why It Matters

Background. One important objective for clinical trialists in rehabilitation is determining efficacy of interventions to enhance motor behavior. In part, limitation in the precision of measurement presents a challenge. The few valid, low-cost observational tools available to assess motor behavior cannot escape the variability inherent in test administration and scoring. This is especially true when there are multiple evaluators and raters, as in the case of multisite randomized controlled trials (RCTs). One way to enhance reliability and reduce variability is to implement rigorous quality control (QC) procedures. Objective. This article describes a systematic QC process used to refine the administration and scoring procedures for the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT)–Functional Ability Scale (FAS). Methods. The QC process, a systematic focus-group collaboration, was developed and used for a phase III RCT, which enlisted multiple evaluators and an experienced WMFT-FAS rater panel. Results. After 3 staged refinements to the administration and scoring instructions, we achieved a sufficiently high interrater reliability (weighted κ = 0.8). Conclusions and Implications. A systematic focus-group process was shown to be an effective method to improve reliability of observational assessment tools for motor behavior in neurorehabilitation. A reduction in noise-related variability in performance assessments will increase power and potentially lower the number needed to treat. Improved precision of measurement can lead to more cost-effective and efficient clinical trials. Finally, we suggest that improved precision in measures of motor behavior may provide more insight into recovery mechanisms than a single measure of movement time alone

Reduced Upper Limb Recovery in Subcortical Stroke Patients With Small Prior Radiographic Stroke

Background: Research imaging costs limit lesion-based analyses in already expensive large stroke rehabilitation trials. Despite the belief that lesion characteristics influence recovery and treatment response, prior studies have not sufficiently addressed whether lesion features are an important consideration in motor rehabilitation trial design.Objective: Using clinically-obtained neuroimaging, evaluate how lesion characteristics relate to upper extremity (UE) recovery and response to therapy in a large UE rehabilitation trial.Methods: We reviewed lesions from 297 participants with mild-moderate motor impairment in the Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE) study and their association with motor recovery, measured by the UE Fugl-Meyer (UE-FM). Significant lesion features identified on correlational and bivariate analysis were further analyzed for associations with recovery and therapy response using longitudinal mixed models.Results: Prior radiographic stroke was associated with less recovery on UE-FM in participants with motor impairment from subsequent subcortical stroke (−5.8 points) and in the overall sample (−3.6 points), but not in participants with cortical or mixed lesions. Lesion volume was also associated with less recovery, particularly after subcortical stroke. Every decade increase in age was associated with 1 less point of recovery on UE-FM. Response to specific treatment regimens varied based on lesion characteristics. Subcortical stroke patients experienced slightly less recovery with higher doses of upper extremity task-oriented training. Participants with cortical or mixed lesions experienced more recovery with higher doses of usual and customary therapy. Other imaging features (leukoaraiosis, ischemic vs. hemorrhagic stroke) were not significant.Conclusions: ICARE clinical imaging revealed information useful for UE motor trial design: stratification of persons with and without prior radiographic stroke may be required in participants with subcortical stroke, the majority of motor rehabilitation trial participants. Most of the prior radiographic strokes were small and cortically-based, suggesting even minor prior brain injury remote to the acute stroke lesion may limit spontaneous and therapy-related recovery. Lesion location may be associated with response to different therapy regimens, but the effects are variable and of unclear significance

Critical Period After Stroke Study (CPASS): A phase II clinical trial testing an optimal time for motor recovery after stroke in humans

Restoration of human brain function after injury is a signal challenge for translational neuroscience. Rodent stroke recovery studies identify an optimal or sensitive period for intensive motor training after stroke: near-full recovery is attained if task-specific motor training occurs during this sensitive window. We extended these findings to adult humans with stroke in a randomized controlled trial applying the essential elements of rodent motor training paradigms to humans. Stroke patients were adaptively randomized to begin 20 extra hours of self-selected, task-specific motor therapy at ≤30 d (acute), 2 to 3 mo (subacute), or ≥6 mo (chronic) after stroke, compared with controls receiving standard motor rehabilitation. Upper extremity (UE) impairment assessed by the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) was measured at up to five time points. The primary outcome measure was ARAT recovery over 1 y after stroke. By 1 y we found significantly increased UE motor function in the subacute group compared with controls (ARAT difference = +6.87 ± 2.63, P = 0.009). The acute group compared with controls showed smaller but significant improvement (ARAT difference = +5.25 ± 2.59 points, P = 0.043). The chronic group showed no significant improvement compared with controls (ARAT = +2.41 ± 2.25, P = 0.29). Thus task-specific motor intervention was most effective within the first 2 to 3 mo after stroke. The similarity to rodent model treatment outcomes suggests that other rodent findings may be translatable to human brain recovery. These results provide empirical evidence of a sensitive period for motor recovery in humans

Preventing recurrence of thromboembolic events through coordinated treatment in the District of Columbia

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/87024/1/j.1747-4949.2011.00654.x.pd