Early-phase dose articulation trials are underutilized for post-stroke motor recovery: A systematic scoping review

2022 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 101487
Author(s):  
Emily J. Dalton ◽  
Leonid Churilov ◽  
Natasha A. Lannin ◽  
Dale Corbett ◽  
Bruce C.V. Campbell ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 68 ◽  
pp. 6-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Roelker ◽  
Mark G. Bowden ◽  
Steven A. Kautz ◽  
Richard R. Neptune

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanne Huygelier ◽  
Emily Mattheus ◽  
Vero Vanden Abeele ◽  
Raymond Van Ee ◽  
Céline R. Gillebert

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (15) ◽  
pp. 1835-1845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Perea Burns ◽  
Brandi M. White ◽  
Gayenell Magwood ◽  
Charles Ellis ◽  
Ayaba Logan ◽  
...  

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Lin ◽  
Alison M Cloutier ◽  
Kimberly S Erler ◽  
Jessica M Cassidy ◽  
Samuel B Snider ◽  
...  

Introduction: Injury to the corticospinal tract (CST) has been shown to have a major effect on upper extremity motor recovery after stroke. This study aimed to examine how well CST injury, measured from neuroimaging acquired during the acute stroke workup, predicts upper extremity motor recovery. Methods: Patients (N = 48) with upper extremity weakness after ischemic stroke were assessed using the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer (FM) during the acute stroke hospitalization and again at 3-month follow-up. CST injury was quantified and compared, using four different methods, from images obtained as part of the stroke standard-of-care workup. Logistic and linear regression were performed using CST injury to predict delta FM. Injury to primary motor and premotor cortices were included as potential modifiers of the effect of CST injury on recovery. Results: 48 patients were enrolled 4.2 ± 2.7 days post-stroke and completed this study. CST injury distinguished patients who reached their recovery potential (as predicted from initial impairment) from those who did not, with AUC values ranging from 0.75 to 0.8. In addition, CST injury explained ~20% of the variance in the magnitude of upper extremity recovery, even after controlling for the severity of initial impairment. Results were consistent when comparing four different methods of measuring CST injury. Extent of injury to primary motor and premotor cortices did not significantly influence the predictive value that CST injury had for recovery. Conclusions: Structural injury to the CST, as estimated from standard-of-care imaging available during the acute stroke hospitalization, is a robust way to distinguish patients who achieve their predicted recovery potential and explains a significant amount of the variance in post-stroke upper extremity motor recovery.


Brain ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 143 (7) ◽  
pp. 2189-2206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K Bonkhoff ◽  
Thomas Hope ◽  
Danilo Bzdok ◽  
Adrian G Guggisberg ◽  
Rachel L Hawe ◽  
...  

Abstract Accurate predictions of motor impairment after stroke are of cardinal importance for the patient, clinician, and healthcare system. More than 10 years ago, the proportional recovery rule was introduced by promising that high-fidelity predictions of recovery following stroke were based only on the initially lost motor function, at least for a specific fraction of patients. However, emerging evidence suggests that this recovery rule is subject to various confounds and may apply less universally than previously assumed. Here, we systematically revisited stroke outcome predictions by applying strategies to avoid confounds and fitting hierarchical Bayesian models. We jointly analysed 385 post-stroke trajectories from six separate studies—one of the largest overall datasets of upper limb motor recovery. We addressed confounding ceiling effects by introducing a subset approach and ensured correct model estimation through synthetic data simulations. Subsequently, we used model comparisons to assess the underlying nature of recovery within our empirical recovery data. The first model comparison, relying on the conventional fraction of patients called ‘fitters’, pointed to a combination of proportional to lost function and constant recovery. ‘Proportional to lost’ here describes the original notion of proportionality, indicating greater recovery in case of a more severe initial impairment. This combination explained only 32% of the variance in recovery, which is in stark contrast to previous reports of >80%. When instead analysing the complete spectrum of subjects, ‘fitters’ and ‘non-fitters’, a combination of proportional to spared function and constant recovery was favoured, implying a more significant improvement in case of more preserved function. Explained variance was at 53%. Therefore, our quantitative findings suggest that motor recovery post-stroke may exhibit some characteristics of proportionality. However, the variance explained was substantially reduced compared to what has previously been reported. This finding motivates future research moving beyond solely behaviour scores to explain stroke recovery and establish robust and discriminating single-subject predictions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document