Pamela W. Duncan

Physical Activity and Public Health in Older Adults Recommendation From the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association

OBJECTIVE To issue a recommendation on the types and amounts of physical activity needed to improve and maintain health in older adults. PARTICIPANTS A panel of scientists with expertise in public health, behavioral science, epidemiology, exercise science, medicine, and gerontology. EVIDENCE The expert panel reviewed existing consensus statements and relevant evidence from primary research articles and reviews of the literature. PROCESS After drafting a recommendation for the older adult population and reviewing drafts of the Updated Recommendation from the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) and the American Heart Association (AHA) for Adults, the panel issued a final recommendation on physical activity for older adults. SUMMARY The recommendation for older adults is similar to the updated ACSM/AHA recommendation for adults, but has several important differences including: the recommended intensity of aerobic activity takes into account the older adults aerobic fitness; activities that maintain or increase flexibility are recommended; and balance exercises are recommended for older adults at risk of falls. In addition, older adults should have an activity plan for achieving recommended physical activity that integrates preventive and therapeutic recommendations. The promotion of physical activity in older adults should emphasize moderate-intensity aerobic activity, muscle-strengthening activity, reducing sedentary behavior, and risk management.

The Stroke Impact Scale Version 2.0 Evaluation of Reliability, Validity, and Sensitivity to Change

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE To be useful for clinical research, an outcome measure must be feasible to administer and have sound psychometric attributes, including reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. This study characterizes the psychometric properties of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) Version 2.0. METHODS Version 2.0 of the SIS is a self-report measure that includes 64 items and assesses 8 domains (strength, hand function, ADL/IADL, mobility, communication, emotion, memory and thinking, and participation). Subjects with mild and moderate strokes completed the SIS at 1 month (n=91), at 3 months (n=80), and at 6 months after stroke (n=69). Twenty-five subjects had a replicate administration of the SIS 1 week after the 3-month or 6-month test. We evaluated internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The validity of the SIS domains was examined by comparing the SIS to existing stroke measures and by comparing differences in SIS scores across Rankin scale levels. The mixed model procedure was used to evaluate responsiveness of the SIS domain scores to change. RESULTS Each of the 8 domains met or approached the standard of 0.9 alpha-coefficient for comparing the same patients across time. The intraclass correlation coefficients for test-retest reliability of SIS domains ranged from 0.70 to 0.92, except for the emotion domain (0.57). When the domains were compared with established outcome measures, the correlations were moderate to strong (0.44 to 0.84). The participation domain was most strongly associated with SF-36 social role function. SIS domain scores discriminated across 4 Rankin levels. SIS domains are responsive to change due to ongoing recovery. Responsiveness to change is affected by stroke severity and time since stroke. CONCLUSIONS This new, stroke-specific outcome measure is reliable, valid, and sensitive to change. We are optimistic about the utility of measure. More studies are required to evaluate the SIS in larger and more heterogeneous populations and to evaluate the feasibility and validity of proxy responses for the most severely impaired patients.

Robot-Assisted Therapy for Long-Term Upper-Limb Impairment after Stroke

BACKGROUND Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. RESULTS At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, -0.14 points; 95% CI, -2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, -8.10 seconds; 95% CI, -13.61 to -2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

Management of Adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care A Clinical Practice Guideline

Stroke is a leading cause of disability in the United States.1 The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimates that 15 000 veterans are hospitalized for stroke each year (VA HSR&D, 1997). Forty percent of stroke patients are left with moderate functional impairments and 15% to 30% with severe disability.2 Effective rehabilitation interventions initiated early after stroke can enhance the recovery process and minimize functional disability. Improved functional outcomes for patients also contribute to patient satisfaction and reduce potential costly long-term care expenditures. There are only 45 rehabilitation bed units (RBUs) in the VA today. Many veterans who have a stroke and are admitted to a VA Medical Center will find themselves in a facility that does not offer comprehensive, integrated, multidisciplinary care. In a VA rehabilitation field survey published in December 2000, more than half of the respondents reported that the “rehabilitative care of stroke patients was incomplete, fragmented, and not well coordinated” at sites lacking a RBU (VA Stroke Medical Rehabilitation Questionnaire Results, 2000). In Department of Defense (DoD) medical treatment facilities, approximately 20 000 active-duty personnel and dependents were seen in 2002 for stroke and stroke-related diagnoses according to ICD-9 coding.3 Comprehensive treatment for stroke patients in DoD medical facilities is given primarily at medical centers. Smaller DoD community hospitals may have limited resources to see both inpatients and outpatients, relying more on the TRICARE network for ongoing stroke rehabilitation services. A growing body of evidence indicates that patients do better with a well-organized, multidisciplinary approach to post-acute rehabilitation after a stroke.4–6 The VA/DoD Stroke Rehabilitation Working Group only focused on the post–acute stroke rehabilitation care. Duncan and colleagues7 found that greater adherence to post-acute stroke rehabilitation guidelines was associated with improved patient outcomes and concluded “compliance …

Sex differences in stroke: epidemiology, clinical presentation, medical care, and outcomes

Stroke has a greater effect on women than men because women have more events and are less likely to recover. Age-specific stroke rates are higher in men, but, because of their longer life expectancy and much higher incidence at older ages, women have more stroke events than men. With the exception of subarachnoid haemorrhage, there is little evidence of sex differences in stroke subtype or severity. Although several reports found that women are less likely to receive some in-hospital interventions, most differences disappear after age and comorbidities are accounted for. However, sex disparities persist in the use of thrombolytic treatment (with alteplase) and lipid testing. Functional outcomes and quality of life after stroke are consistently poorer in women, despite adjustment for baseline differences in age, prestroke function, and comorbidities. Here, we comprehensively review the epidemiology, clinical presentation, medical care, and outcomes of stroke in women.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Therapeutic Exercise in Subacute Stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Rehabilitation care after stroke is highly variable and increasingly shorter in duration. The effect of therapeutic exercise on impairments and functional limitations after stroke is not clear. The objective of this study was to determine whether a structured, progressive, physiologically based exercise program for subacute stroke produces gains greater than those attributable to spontaneous recovery and usual care. METHODS This randomized, controlled, single-blind clinical trial was conducted in a metropolitan area and 17 participating healthcare institutions. We included persons with stroke who were living in the community. One hundred patients (mean age, 70 years; mean Orpington score, 3.4) consented and were randomized from a screened sample of 582. Ninety-two subjects completed the trial. Intervention was a structured, progressive, physiologically based, therapist-supervised, in-home program of thirty-six 90-minute sessions over 12 weeks targeting flexibility, strength, balance, endurance, and upper-extremity function. Main outcome measures were postintervention strength (ankle and knee isometric peak torque, grip strength), upper- and lower-extremity motor control (Fugl Meyer), balance (Berg and functional reach), endurance (peak aerobic capacity and exercise duration), upper-extremity function (Wolf Motor Function Test), and mobility (timed 10-m walk and 6-minute walk distance). RESULTS In the intention-to-treat multivariate analysis of variance testing the overall effect, the intervention produced greater gains than usual care (Wilks lambda=0.64, P=0.0056). Both intervention and usual care groups improved in strength, balance, upper- and lower-extremity motor control, upper-extremity function, and gait velocity. Gains for the intervention group exceeded those in the usual care group in balance, endurance, peak aerobic capacity, and mobility. Upper-extremity gains exceeded those in the usual care group only in patients with higher baseline function. CONCLUSIONS This structured, progressive program of therapeutic exercise in persons who had completed acute rehabilitation services produced gains in endurance, balance, and mobility beyond those attributable to spontaneous recovery and usual care.

Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care Recommendations From the American Stroke Association’s Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems

Stroke continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Approximately 700 000 Americans have a new or recurrent stroke each year, and stroke remains the third leading cause of death in the United States when considered independently from other cardiovascular diseases. Stroke also remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States.1 Major advances have been made during the past several decades in stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Despite successes in delivering effective new therapies, significant obstacles remain in ensuring that scientific advances are consistently translated into clinical practice. In many instances, these obstacles can be related to a fragmentation of stroke-related care caused by inadequate integration of the various facilities, agencies, and professionals that should closely collaborate in providing stroke care. There is increased emphasis on improving the components of stroke care, including recommendations from the Brain Attack Coalition for primary stroke centers and a formal process provided through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) for the certification of primary stroke centers.2–4 It is critically important to look carefully at how the distinct components can be better integrated into systems of stroke care. The American Stroke Association (ASA), a division of the American Heart Association (AHA), is dedicated to improving stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation through research, education, advocacy, and the development and application of scientifically based standards and guidelines. The ASA convened a multidisciplinary group, the Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems, to describe the current fragmentation of stroke care, to define the key components of a stroke system, and to recommend methods for encouraging the implementation of stroke systems. The term “stroke system” is used in this article to avoid the corporate and financial connotations associated with the words “network” and …

Body-weight-supported treadmill rehabilitation after stroke.

BACKGROUND Locomotor training, including the use of body-weight support in treadmill stepping, is a physical therapy intervention used to improve recovery of the ability to walk after stroke. The effectiveness and appropriate timing of this intervention have not been established. METHODS We stratified 408 participants who had had a stroke 2 months earlier according to the extent of walking impairment--moderate (able to walk 0.4 to <0.8 m per second) or severe (able to walk <0.4 m per second)--and randomly assigned them to one of three training groups. One group received training on a treadmill with the use of body-weight support 2 months after the stroke had occurred (early locomotor training), the second group received this training 6 months after the stroke had occurred (late locomotor training), and the third group participated in an exercise program at home managed by a physical therapist 2 months after the stroke (home-exercise program). Each intervention included 36 sessions of 90 minutes each for 12 to 16 weeks. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants in each group who had an improvement in functional walking ability 1 year after the stroke. RESULTS At 1 year, 52.0% of all participants had increased functional walking ability. No significant differences in improvement were found between early locomotor training and home exercise (adjusted odds ratio for the primary outcome, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50 to 1.39) or between late locomotor training and home exercise (adjusted odds ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.99). All groups had similar improvements in walking speed, motor recovery, balance, functional status, and quality of life. Neither the delay in initiating the late locomotor training nor the severity of the initial impairment affected the outcome at 1 year. Ten related serious adverse events were reported (occurring in 2.2% of participants undergoing early locomotor training, 3.5% of those undergoing late locomotor training, and 1.6% of those engaging in home exercise). As compared with the home-exercise group, each of the groups receiving locomotor training had a higher frequency of dizziness or faintness during treatment (P=0.008). Among patients with severe walking impairment, multiple falls were more common in the group receiving early locomotor training than in the other two groups (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Locomotor training, including the use of body-weight support in stepping on a treadmill, was not shown to be superior to progressive exercise at home managed by a physical therapist. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; LEAPS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243919.).

Improvements in Speed-Based Gait Classifications Are Meaningful

Background and Purpose— Gait velocity is a powerful indicator of function and prognosis after stroke. Gait velocity can be stratified into clinically meaningful functional ambulation classes, such as household ambulation (<0.4 m/s), limited community ambulation (0.4 to 0.8 m/s), and full community ambulation (>0.8 m/s). The purpose of the current study was to determine whether changes in velocity-based community ambulation classification were related to clinically meaningful changes in stroke-related function and quality of life. Methods— In subacute stroke survivors with mild to moderate deficits who participated in a randomized clinical trial of stroke rehabilitation and had a baseline gait velocity of 0.8 m/s or less, we assessed the effect of success versus failure to achieve a transition to the next class on function and quality of life according to domains of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS). Results— Of 64 eligible participants, 19 were initially household ambulators, and 12 of them (68%) transitioned to limited community ambulation, whereas of 45 initially limited community ambulators, 17 (38%) became full community ambulators. Function and quality-of-life SIS scores after treatment were significantly higher among survivors who achieved a favorable transition compared with those who did not. Among household ambulators, those who transitioned to limited or full community ambulation had significantly better SIS scores in mobility (P=0.0299) and participation (P=0.0277). Among limited community ambulators, those who achieved the transition to full community ambulatory status had significantly better scores in SIS participation (P=0.0085). Conclusions— A gait velocity gain that results in a transition to a higher class of ambulation results in better function and quality of life, especially for household ambulators. Household ambulators possibly had more severe stroke deficits, reducing the risk of “ceiling” effects in SIS-measured activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Outcome assessment based on transitions within a mobility classification scheme that is rooted in gait velocity yields potentially meaningful indicators of clinical benefit. Outcomes should be selected that are clinically meaningful for all levels of severity.

Functional reach: a marker of physical frailty.

To establish the concurrent validity of our new balance instrument, functional reach (FR = maximal safe standing forward reach), as a marker of physical frailty compared with other clinical measures of physical performance.