| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2005;36:215.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.
Advances in Stroke 2004 |
From Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (R.W.T.), St. Josephs Health Care, London, Ontario, Canada; and Stroke Medicine (L.K.), Guys, Kings and St. Thomas School of Medicine, Kings College Hospital, London, UK.
Correspondence to Dr Robert Teasell, University of Western Ontario, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Parkwood Hospital, 801 Commissioners Rd E, London, Ontario, Canada N6C 5J1. E-mail Robert.teasel{at}sjhc.london.on.ca
Key Words: Advances in Stroke early intensive outpatients stroke rehabilitation
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| Early Therapy |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Neuroimaging evidence suggests that different parts of the brain may be involved at different times in recovery, and this pattern may vary according to the level of recovery. Ward et al4 undertook functional MRI studies in stroke patients while performing outcome-related motor tasks during the early (10 to 14 days) and late (>3 months) phases of recovery. A negative linear relationship was seen between task performance and activation in the primary and nonprimary motor areas at both time points, which suggested that recruitment occurs more widely within motor-related regions in the early and the late poststroke phase in patients with poor recovery. In contrast, other areas of the brain (contralesional middle intraparietal sulcus, contralesional cerebellum, and ipsilesional rostral premotor cortex) were recruited only in the early and not in the late phase in patients with poor outcomes. The authors concluded that time-dependent differences in activation patterns associated with recovery were significant and suggested that different therapeutic approaches may be required at different stages to gain most from rehabilitation.
These studies emphasize the importance of early rehabilitation for good outcomes. Although supported by a number of nonrandomized comparative trials, a recent randomized controlled study showed that intensive rehabilitative treatment given in 2 60-minute sessions for 14 days after stroke onset did not improve functional outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients.5 In contrast, Feys et al,6 using a randomized controlled design, showed that adding an early, repetitive, and targeted stimulation to the arm during the acute phase after a stroke resulted in a clinically meaningful and long-lasting effect on motor function in patients, even after 5 years. Additional RCTs may well be unethical in light of recent mechanistic studies, which strongly support the concept that delays in accessing rehabilitation for appropriate stroke patients have a negative impact on recovery.
The emphasis on early rehabilitation should not preclude appropriate rehabilitation in chronic stroke patients. Modulation of motor networks may still be possible in chronic stroke patients. In a small but well-conducted study, Luft et al7 found that bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing induced reorganization in contralesional motor networks in patients recruited 3 to 6 years after stroke, suggesting that the brain retained the capacity to recover well beyond the acute injury phase.
| Intensity and Frequency of Treatment |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Nevertheless, evidence shows that we are struggling to provide the intensity and frequency of therapy required to improve outcomes. Bernhardt et al12 conducted an observational behavioral mapping study on 64 stroke patients in 5 acute stroke units. The authors reported that patients engaged in minimal therapeutic activity or moderate therapeutic activities for only 12.8% of the therapeutic day (8 AM to 5 PM). Patients were resting in bed 53% of the time and were alone for 60.4% of the time. Therapist contact constituted only 5.2% of the day. Previous studies have shown similar limited therapistpatient contact time in stroke units. Similarly, Lenze et al13 have reported that poor participation in therapy was common during inpatient rehabilitation and resulted in lower improvements in FIM scores and longer lengths of stay even when controlling for admission FIM scores.
Because resources for stroke rehabilitation are limited, an answer may be the use of assistive technologies, in particular, robotic therapies. Reinkensmeyer et al14 note that robotic therapy devices allow for precise control and measurement of therapy, allowing for research into the optimal training techniques and dosage of rehabilitation therapies. Robotics allow for some of the labor-intensive training tasks performed currently by therapists to be performed by automated devices, thereby providing patients with greater access to therapy. As the evidence grows that more intensive therapy influences recovery, robotics may offer an opportunity to meet an important treatment gap.
| Outpatient Rehabilitation Therapies |
|---|
|
|
|---|
In a study by Lincoln et al,19 428 stroke patients and their caregivers were randomized to rehabilitation from a community stroke team or to routine care, which could include day hospitals or outpatient departments. There were no significant differences between patients who received rehabilitation from community stroke teams and those who received routine care in their independence in ADL, mood, quality of life, or knowledge of stroke. Patients in the community stroke team group were more satisfied with the emotional support they received. Caregivers of patients in the community stroke team group were under less strain and reported greater levels of overall satisfaction.
Supporting and training caregivers in the caregiving role is emerging as an important aspect of stroke rehabilitation. In an RCT of 300 patients and their caregivers, Kalra et al20 showed that formal training of caregivers during patient rehabilitation was associated with less caregiving burden, better psychological outcomes, and higher quality of life in caregivers and improved psychological outcomes and quality of life in patients. Training caregivers also reduced overall costs of health and social care.
| Neuroimaging in Stroke Recovery |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Received November 24, 2004; accepted December 1, 2004.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci. 2004; 24: 12451254.
3. Barbay S, Plautz E, Friel KM, Frost FS, Stowe A, Dancause N, Wang H, a Nudo RJ. Delayed rehabilitative training following a small ischemic infarct in nonhuman primate primary motor cortex. Soc Neurosci Abstr. 2001; 27: 931.4.
4. Ward NS, Brown MM, Thompson AJ, Frackowiak RS. The influence of time after stroke on brain activations during a motor task. Ann Neurol. 2004; 55: 829834.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Di Lauro A, Pellegrino L, Savastano G, Ferraro C, Fusco M, Balzarano F, Franco MM, Biancardi LG, Grasso A. A randomized trial on the efficacy of intensive rehabilitation in the acute phase of ischemic stroke. J Neurol. 2003; 250: 12061208.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6. Feys H, De Weerdt W, Verbeke G, Steck GC, Capiau C, Kiekens C, Putman K, Dejaeger E, Van Hoydonck G, Vermeersch G, Cras P. Early and repetitive stimulation of the arm can substantially improve the long-term outcome after stroke: a 5-year follow-up study of a randomized trial. Stroke. 2004; 35: 924929.
7. Luft AR, McCombe-Waller S, Whitall J, Forrester LW, Macko R, Sorkin JD, Schulz JB, Goldberg AP, Hanley DF. Repetitive bilateral arm training and motor cortex activation in chronic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2004; 292: 18531861.
8. Kwakkel G, van Peppen R, Wagenaar RC, Wood DS, Richards C, Ashburn A, Miller K, Lincoln N, Partridge C, Wellwood I, Langhorne P. Effects of augmented exercise therapy time after stroke: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004; 35: 25292539.
9. Meinzer M, Elbert T, Wienbruch C, Djundja D, Barthel G, Rockstroh B. Intensive language training enhances brain plasticity in chronic aphasia. BMC Biol. 2004; 2: 20.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10. Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Semik P, Mallinson T. Relative importance of rehabilitation therapy characteristics on functional outcomes for persons with stroke. Stroke. 2004; 35: 25372542.
11. Sonoda S, Saitoh E, Nagai S, Kawakita M, Kanada Y. Full-time integrated treatment program, a new system for stroke rehabilitation in Japan: comparison with conventional rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83: 8893.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Bernhardt J, Dewey H, Thrift A, Donnan G. Inactive and alone: physical activity within the first 14 days of acute stroke unit care. Stroke. 2004; 35: 10051009.
13. Lenze EJ, Munin MC, Quear T, Dew MA, Rogers JC, Begley AE, Reynolds CF. Significance of poor patient participation in physical and occupational therapy for functional outcome and length of stay. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85: 15991601.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
14. Reinkensmeyer DJ, Emken JL, Cramer SC. Robotics, motor learning, and neurologic recovery. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 2004; 6: 497525.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
15. Legg L, Langhorne P. Rehabilitation therapy services for stroke patients living at home: systematic review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2004; 363: 352356.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
16. McClellan R, Ada L. A six-week, resource-efficient mobility program after discharge from rehabilitation improves standing in people affected by stroke: placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Aust J Physiother. 2004; 50: 163167.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
17. Lin JH, Hsieh CL, Lo SK, Chai HM, Liao LR. Preliminary study of the effect of low-intensity home-based physical therapy in chronic stroke patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2004; 20: 1823.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
18. Page SJ. Intensity versus task-specificity after stroke: how important is intensity? Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: 730732.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
19. Lincoln NB, Walker MF, Dixon A, Knights P. Evaluation of a multiprofessional community stroke team: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2004; 18: 4047.
20. Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Melbourn A, Patel A, Knapp M, Donaldson N. Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004; 328: 1099.
21. Baron JC, Cohen LG, Cramer SC, Dobkin BH, Johansen-Berg H, Loubinoux I, Marshall RS, Ward NS. Neuroimaging in stroke recovery: a position paper from the First International Workshop on Neuroimaging and Stroke Recovery. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2004; 18: 260267.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C. L. Ludlow, J. Hoit, R. Kent, L. O. Ramig, R. Shrivastav, E. Strand, K. Yorkston, and C. M. Sapienza Translating Principles of Neural Plasticity Into Research on Speech Motor Control Recovery and Rehabilitation J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2008; 51(1): S240 - S258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. Robbins, S. G. Butler, S. K. Daniels, R. Diez Gross, S. Langmore, C. L. Lazarus, B. Martin-Harris, D. McCabe, N. Musson, and J. Rosenbek Swallowing and Dysphagia Rehabilitation: Translating Principles of Neural Plasticity Into Clinically Oriented Evidence J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2008; 51(1): S276 - S300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 2005 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |