Alexander W. Dromerick

Does the Application of Constraint-Induced Movement Therapy During Acute Rehabilitation Reduce Arm Impairment After Ischemic Stroke?

Background and Purpose Motor dysfunction after unilateral deafferentation in primates can be overcome by restraining the unaffected limb. We asked whether a constraint-induced movement (CIM) program could be implemented within 2 weeks after stroke and whether CIM is more effective than traditional upper-extremity (UE) therapies during this period. Methods Twenty-three persons were enrolled in a pilot randomized, controlled trial that compared CIM with traditional therapies. A blinded observer rated the primary end point, the Action Research Arm Test (ARA). Inclusion criteria were the following: ischemic stroke within 14 days, persistent hemiparesis, evidence of preserved cognitive function, and presence of a protective motor response. Differences between the groups were compared by using Student’s t tests, ANCOVA, and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results Twenty subjects completed the 14-day treatment. Two adverse outcomes, a recurrent stroke and a death, occurred in the traditional group; 1 CIM subject met rehabilitation goals and was discharged before completing 14 inpatient days. The CIM treatment group had significantly higher scores on total ARA and pinch subscale scores (P <0.05). Differences in the mean ARA grip, grasp, and gross movement subscale scores did not reach statistical significance. UE activities of daily living performance was not significantly different between groups, and no subject withdrew because of pain or frustration. Conclusions A clinical trial of CIM therapy during acute rehabilitation is feasible. CIM was associated with less arm impairment at the end of treatment. Long-term studies are needed to determine whether CIM early after stroke is superior to traditional therapies.

Very Early Constraint-Induced Movement during Stroke Rehabilitation (VECTORS): A single-center RCT

Background: Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) is among the most developed training approaches for motor restoration of the upper extremity (UE). Methods: Very Early Constraint-Induced Movement during Stroke Rehabilitation (VECTORS) was a single-blind phase II trial of CIMT during acute inpatient rehabilitation comparing traditional UE therapy with dose-matched and high-intensity CIMT protocols. Participants were adaptively randomized on rehabilitation admission, and received 2 weeks of study-related treatments. The primary endpoint was the total Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) score on the more affected side at 90 days after stroke onset. A mixed model analysis was performed. Results: A total of 52 participants (mean age 63.9 ± 14 years) were randomized 9.65 ± 4.5 days after onset. Mean NIHSS was 5.3 ± 1.8; mean total ARAT score was 22.5 ± 15.6; 77% had ischemic stroke. Groups were equivalent at baseline on all randomization variables. As expected, all groups improved with time on the total ARAT score. There was a significant time x group interaction (F = 3.1, p < 0.01), such that the high intensity CIT group had significantly less improvement at day 90. No significant differences were found between the dose-matched CIMT and control groups at day 90. MRI of a subsample showed no evidence of activity-dependent lesion enlargement. Conclusion: Constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) was equally as effective but not superior to an equal dose of traditional therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation. Higher intensity CIMT resulted in less motor improvement at 90 days, indicating an inverse dose-response relationship. Motor intervention trials should control for dose, and higher doses of motor training cannot be assumed to be more beneficial, particularly early after stroke.

Estimating Minimal Clinically Important Differences of Upper-Extremity Measures Early After Stroke

OBJECTIVE To estimate minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values of several upper-extremity measures early after stroke. DESIGN Data in this report were collected during the Very Early Constraint-induced Therapy for Recovery of Stroke trial, an acute, single-blind randomized controlled trial of constraint-induced movement therapy. Subjects were tested at the prerandomization baseline assessment (average days poststroke, 9.5d) and the first posttreatment assessment (average days poststroke, 25.9d). At each time point, the affected upper extremity was evaluated with a battery of 6 tests. At the second assessment, subjects were also asked to provide a global rating of perceived changes in their affected upper extremity. Anchor-based MCID values were calculated separately for the affected dominant upper extremities and the affected nondominant upper extremities for each of the 6 tests. SETTING Inpatient rehabilitation hospital. PARTICIPANTS Fifty-two people with hemiparesis poststroke. INTERVENTIONS Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Estimated MCID values for grip strength, composite upper-extremity strength, Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), Motor Activity Log (MAL), and duration of upper-extremity use as measured with accelerometry. RESULTS MCID values for grip strength were 5.0 and 6.2 kg for the affected dominant and nondominant sides, respectively. MCID values for the ARAT were 12 and 17 points, for the WMFT function score were 1.0 and 1.2 points, and for the MAL quality of movement score were 1.0 and 1.1 points for the 2 sides, respectively. MCID values were indeterminate for the dominant (composite strength), the nondominant (WMFT time score), and both affected sides (duration of use) for the other measures. CONCLUSIONS Our data provide some of the first estimates of MCID values for upper-extremity standardized measures early after stroke. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to refine these estimates and to determine whether MCID values are modified by time poststroke.

Predictors of Acute Hospital Costs for Treatment of Ischemic Stroke in an Academic Center

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE We sought to determine predictors of acute hospital costs in patients presenting with acute ischemic stroke to an academic center using a stroke management team to coordinate care. METHODS Demographic and clinical data were prospectively collected on 191 patients consecutively admitted with acute ischemic stroke. Patients were classified by insurance status, premorbid modified Rankin scale, stroke location, stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score), and presence of comorbidities. Detailed hospital charge data were converted to cost by application of department-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Physicians fees were not included. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was computed to determine the predictors of total hospital cost. RESULTS Median length of stay was 6 days (range, 1 to 63 days), and mortality was 3%. Median hospital cost per discharge was

Sensitivity to changes in disability after stroke: a comparison of four scales useful in clinical trials.

4408 (range,

Screening Patients with Stroke for Rehabilitation Needs: Validation of the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines

1199 to

Upper extremity use in people with hemiparesis in the first few weeks after stroke.

59 799). Fifty percent of costs were for room charges, 19% for stroke evaluation, 21% for medical management, and 7% for acute rehabilitation therapies. Sixteen percent were admitted to an intensive care unit. Length of stay accounted for 43% of the variance in total cost. Other independent predictors of cost included stroke severity, heparin treatment, atrial fibrillation, male sex, ischemic cardiac disease, and premorbid functional status. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that the major predictors of acute hospital costs of stroke in this environment are length of stay, stroke severity, cardiac disease, male sex, and use of heparin. Room charges accounted for the majority of costs, and attempts to reduce the cost of stroke evaluation would be of marginal value. Efforts to reduce acute costs should be monitored for potential cost shifting or a negative impact on quality of care.

Gains in Upper Extremity Function After Stroke via Recovery or Compensation: Potential Differential Effects on Amount of Real-World Limb Use

Although most current stroke intervention trials use disability scales to determine outcome, little is known about the sensitivity to change of these scales. The use of a more sensitive measure would increase the statistical power of rehabilitation treatment trials. We applied four well-known disability scales to a group of stroke rehabilitation inpatients to compare sensitivity to change. Ninety-five consecutive admissions to a stroke rehabilitation service were assessed for disability on admission and discharge. Two global scales, the Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) and the International Stroke Trial Measure (ISTM), were compared with two activities of daily living (ADL) scales, the Barthel Index (BI) and the Functional Independence Measure (FIM). We determined the number of patients that each scale detected a clinically significant change in disability. Standardized response means (SRM) and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were performed. The MRS detected change in 55 subjects, including all who changed on the ISTM; the ISTM detected change in only 23 subjects. The BI detected change in 71 subjects but demonstrated ceiling effects with 26% of subjects scoring >95. The FIM was most sensitive, detecting change in 91 subjects; no patient achieved a maximum score. The SRM of the FIM was superior to that of the BI (2.18 versus 1.72), and ROC analysis revealed C-statistics of 0.82 for the BI, 0.59 for the MRS, and 0.51 for the ISTM. Global scales were much less sensitive to changes in disability than were ADL scales. Though ADL scales may take longer to administer, their increased sensitivity may make them more useful in treatment trials by allowing fewer subjects to be enrolled.

Deficits in grasp versus reach during acute hemiparesis

Background. The authors assessed patients with acute stroke to determine whether the systematic use of brief screening measures would more efficiently detect cognitive and sensory impairment than standard clinical practice. Methods. Fifty-three patients admitted to an acute stroke unit were assessed within 10 days of stroke onset. Performance on the screening measures was compared to information obtained from review of the patient’s chart at discharge. Cognition, language, visual acuity, visual-spatial neglect, hearing, and depression were evaluated. Results. Formal screening detected significantly more impairments than were noted in patient charts in every domain. Only 3 patients had no impairments identified on screening; all remaining patients had at least 1 impairment detected by screening that was not documented in the chart. Thirty-five percent had 3 or more undetected impairments. Memory impairment was most likely to be noted in the chart; for all other domains tested, undocumented impairment ranged from 61% (neglect) to 97% (anomia). Conclusion. Many acute stroke patients had cognitive and perceptual deficits that were not documented in their charts. These data support the Post-Stroke Rehabilitation Guidelines for systematic assessment even when deficits are not immediately apparent. Systematic screening may improve discharge planning, rehabilitation treatment, and long-term outcome of persons with stroke.

Sensorimotor Impairments and Reaching Performance in Subjects With Poststroke Hemiparesis During the First Few Months of Recovery

The purposes of this report were to: 1) determine the amount of upper extremity use in people with hemiparesis post stroke during their inpatient rehabilitation stay, and 2) to examine the relationships between upper extremity use and impairments and activity limitations at this early time point after stroke. We studied 34 subjects with mild-to-moderate acute hemiparesis (mean time since stroke = 9.3 days) and 10 healthy control subjects. Upper extremity use was measured over 24 hours using bilateral wrist accelerometers. Upper extremity impairments and activity limitations were measured using standard clinical techniques and tests. We found that healthy control subjects use their dominant and nondominant upper extremities 8–9 hours per day. Hemiparetic subjects used their affected and unaffected upper extremities substantially less than control subjects, 3.3 and 6.0 hours per day, respectively. Seven of ten impairment level measures and each of the activity level measures were related to affected upper extremity use. The impairment measures that were related to upper extremity use were those measures that assessed the ability to activate muscles (ie active range of motion and force production) and the measurement of shoulder pain. Our data show that affected upper extremity use is minimal during the inpatient rehabilitation stay, especially given that patients in this setting are required to have 3 hours of therapy per day. We speculate that accelerometer measurements of upper extremity use could be used in a variety of settings and that the objective information they provide would be of great value to clinicians as they select treatments and evaluate progress.