scholarly journals Spontaneous Recovery of Upper Extremity Motor Impairment After Ischemic Stroke: Implications for Stem Cell-Based Therapeutic Approaches

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Delavaran ◽  
Joseph Aked ◽  
Håkan Sjunnesson ◽  
Olle Lindvall ◽  
Bo Norrving ◽  
...  
Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H de Havenon ◽  
Robynne Braun ◽  
N Abimbola Sunmonu ◽  
Laura Heitsch ◽  
Eva Mistry ◽  
...  

Background: Motor impairment after ischemic stroke is common and has variable recovery that depends on patient factors and stroke severity. An important challenge in rehabilitation research is enrolling patients who may benefit from interventions to improve recovery because they will not recover with standard care. Hypothesis: We can accurately predict persistent upper extremity motor impairment at 90 days after acute ischemic stroke. Methods: The primary outcome was an NIHSS arm domain score of 2-4 at 90 days in patients with a 24-hour NIHSS arm score of 1-4, which we termed persistent arm impairment. With the NINDS tPA trial dataset we used LASSO regression to select baseline demographics and 24-hour NIHSS score domains for a predictive model. We gave one point each for age ≥60 years and 24-hour NIHSS values of worst arm=4, worst leg>2, facial palsy=3, and total NIHSS≥10. The optimal cutpoint for a positive Persistent UPPer extremity Impairment (PUPPI) Score was ≥3 points. We validated the PUPPI score in the ALIAS Part 2, IMS-III, and DEFUSE 3 trials. Results: We included 431, 383, 331, and 71 patients from the NINDS tPA, ALIAS Part 2, IMS-III, and DEFUSE 3 trials. PUPPI was most common in the NINDS tPA trial (62%) and least common in ALIAS (31.3%). The PUPPI Score accurately predicted PUPPI with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of >0.75 for all trials (Table 1). The positive predictive value was 74.6%, 90.9%, 86.1%, and 74.5% in the NINDS tPA, ALIAS Part 2, IMS-III, and DEFUSE 3 trials (Table 1). Conclusion: The PUPPI score uses readily available information to provide accurate prediction of patients who will have persistent upper extremity motor impairment at 90 days from stroke onset.


Stroke ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gourav Choudhury ◽  
Marcel Daadi

Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of upper extremity motor impairments. Well-characterized experimental stroke models for upper extremity motor impairment remain underdeveloped. Cortical representation of dexterous movements in nonhuman primates (NHP) is functionally and topographically similar to that in humans. We recently reported the characterization of an NHP model of focal ischemia reperfusion with a defined syndrome, impaired arm function and finger dexterity. In this study, we investigated the cellular changes in the neural stem cell compartment and glial cell populations in this NHP model. NHPs were subjected to transient cerebral ischemia by temporarily occluding the M3 segment of the left side middle cerebral artery (MCA). Motor and cognitive functions following the stroke were evaluated using the object retrieval task with barrier-detour. Postmortem analysis included magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and immunohistopathology to map the infarct and characterize the neurogenic and gliogenic changes. The MCA occlusion produced significant loss of fine motor function characterized by impaired dexterity. Immunocytochemical analysis revealed significant increase of Sox2+ neural stem cells in the subventricular zone, and of GFAP+ astrocytes (P<0.0001) and Iba-1+ microglia (P<0.0001) in the infarct region. In addition, there was a 42% increase in doublecortin positive cells (P<0.0001) compared to non-ischemic hemisphere. This study describes the cellular composition of the endogenous changes in the neural stem cell compartment and in the stroke region. These data may help reveal the cellular identity mediating neural plasticity and the cellular mechanisms mediating behavioral deficits and post-stroke recovery.


Neurology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 89 (24) ◽  
pp. 2413-2421 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Brunner ◽  
Jan Sture Skouen ◽  
Håkon Hofstad ◽  
Jörg Aßmus ◽  
Frank Becker ◽  
...  

Objective:To compare the effectiveness of upper extremity virtual reality rehabilitation training (VR) to time-matched conventional training (CT) in the subacute phase after stroke.Methods:In this randomized, controlled, single-blind phase III multicenter trial, 120 participants with upper extremity motor impairment within 12 weeks after stroke were consecutively included at 5 rehabilitation institutions. Participants were randomized to either VR or CT as an adjunct to standard rehabilitation and stratified according to mild to moderate or severe hand paresis, defined as ≥20 degrees wrist and 10 degrees finger extension or less, respectively. The training comprised a minimum of sixteen 60-minute sessions over 4 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT); secondary outcome measures were the Box and Blocks Test and Functional Independence Measure. Patients were assessed at baseline, after intervention, and at the 3-month follow-up.Results:Mean time from stroke onset for the VR group was 35 (SD 21) days and for the CT group was 34 (SD 19) days. There were no between-group differences for any of the outcome measures. Improvement of upper extremity motor function assessed with ARAT was similar at the postintervention (p = 0.714) and follow-up (p = 0.777) assessments. Patients in VR improved 12 (SD 11) points from baseline to the postintervention assessment and 17 (SD 13) points from baseline to follow-up, while patients in CT improved 13 (SD 10) and 17 (SD 13) points, respectively. Improvement was also similar for our subgroup analysis with mild to moderate and severe upper extremity paresis.Conclusions:Additional upper extremity VR training was not superior but equally as effective as additional CT in the subacute phase after stroke. VR may constitute a motivating training alternative as a supplement to standard rehabilitation.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02079103.Classification of evidence:This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise M. Peters ◽  
Julius Fridriksson ◽  
Jill C. Stewart ◽  
Jessica D. Richardson ◽  
Chris Rorden ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyi Wu ◽  
Hao Cheng ◽  
Jiaqi Zhang ◽  
Shanli Yang ◽  
Sufang Cai

Abstract Objective The purpose of this study was to review the effects of robot-assisted therapy (RT) for improving poststroke upper extremity motor impairment. Methods The PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to April 8, 2020. Randomized controlled trials that were conducted to evaluate the effects of RT on upper extremity motor impairment poststroke and that used Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity (FMA-UE) scores as an outcome were included. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to pool the effect sizes across the studies. Results Forty-one randomized controlled trials with 1916 stroke patients were included. Compared with dose-matched conventional rehabilitation, RT significantly improved the FMA-UE scores of the patients with stroke, with a small effect size (Hedges g = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.11 to 0.38; I2 = 45.9%). The subgroup analysis revealed that the effects of unilateral RT, but not that of bilateral RT, was superior to conventional rehabilitation (Hedges g = 0.32; 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.50; I2 = 55.9%). Regarding the type of robot devices, the effects of the end effector device (Hedges g = 0.22; 95% CI = 0.09 to −0.36; I2 = 35.4%), but not the exoskeleton device, were superior to conventional rehabilitation. Regarding the stroke stage, the between-group difference (ie, RT vs convention rehabilitation) was significant only for people with late subacute or chronic stroke (Hedges g = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.50; I2 = 34.2%). Conclusion RT might be superior to conventional rehabilitation in improving upper extremity motor impairment in people after stroke with notable upper extremity hemiplegia and limited potential for spontaneous recovery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document