Remediation of the Non-Paretic Arm in Stroke

March 26, 2019 updated by: Robert L. Sainburg, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center

Remediation of the Non-Paretic Arm to Improve Functional Independence in Chronic Stroke Survivors

Stroke survivors with severe contralesional paresis often have substantial control and coordination deficits in the non-paretic arm. Because this arm must serve as the primary controller, these deficits can be functionally devastating. The investigators now hypothesize that the combination of severe paresis (Upper Extremity Fugl-Meyer Score ≤35) and persistent motor deficits in the non-paretic arm limits functional independence in chronic stroke survivors. The investigators predict that remediation, focused on the non-paretic arm should improve functional independence. The investigators propose a randomized study design with two tracts, two periods and four assessments. The investigators envision this study as the first step in establishing the basis for a rehabilitation approach that focuses on remediation of BOTH arms, which constitutes a substantial change from current remediation protocols focused only on the contralesional arm.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Detailed Description

The investigators previously elaborated hemisphere specific motor deficits in the non-paretic arm of chronic stroke survivors with unilateral hemisphere damage. The investigators showed that these deficits are associated with substantial limitations in performance of activities of daily living (ADL), an effect exacerbated by contralesional paresis due to forced reliance on the non-paretic arm. The investigators now hypothesize that the combination low moderate to severe paresis (Fugl-Meyer Score < 35) and persistent motor deficits in the non-paretic arm limits functional independence in chronic stroke survivors. The investigators predict that intense remediation focused on improving the speed, coordination, and accuracy of the non-paretic arm should improve functional independence, as well as improving paretic arm function due to increased participation in daily activities. Unfortunately, the usual standard of care in rehabilitation for survivors with low-moderate to severe paresis tends to focus on task training in essential ADL activities, rather than on intensive remediation. Previous research has shown that non-paretic arm deficits depend on the hemisphere that is damaged by stroke, such that left hemisphere damage (LHD) impairs trajectory features, including speed and smoothness, while right hemisphere damage (RHD) impairs the ability to bring the arm to rest at an accurate and stable position. The investigators have designed a training program to address both of these motor components and to improve the speed and dexterity of the non-paretic arm. The investigators propose a randomized study design with two tracts, two periods and four assessments. Participants will first complete 2 baseline assessments, spaced 3 weeks apart. Following completion of the second assessment, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two tracks: Track 1 will receive three weeks of arm training, followed by 3 weeks of a comparison condition. Participants assigned to track 2 will receive three weeks of the comparison condition, followed by 3 weeks of arm training. Then, all participants will complete an end-of-period assessment, and a follow-up assessment for retention, 3 weeks after completion of the two periods. Pilot results indicate that non-paretic arm training produces substantial improvements in motor performance and functional independence as well as reducing paretic arm impairment. This is an essential first-step in developing a rehabilitation protocol focused on remediating both arms of severely impaired stroke survivors.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

15

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

    • Pennsylvania
      • Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States, 17033
        • Penn State College of Medicine; Hershey Medical Center

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

21 years to 85 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  1. Subjects will be between 21 and 85 years old of either gender
  2. Subjects will demonstrate cognitive abilities required to follow commands and engage in the experimental task
  3. Subjects will have had a unilateral stroke at least 3 months prior to participation resulting in upper extremity motor deficits

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. hospitalization for substance abuse and/or a major psychiatric diagnosis (schizophrenia);
  2. non-stroke neurological diseases that may affect ability to perform task or upper limb motor function
  3. certain peripheral movement restrictions, such as neuropathy
  4. neuroradiological confirmation of concomitant damage to the cerebellum or brain stem or extensive periventricular white matter changes (based on consultation with neuroradiology)

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Track 1
Training of non-paretic arm for 3 weeks consisting of occupational therapy and kinematic tasks followed by sham condition (playing board games/computer games) for 3 weeks
Training of non-paretic arm followed by sham condition
Other Names:
  • remediation of non-paretic arm followed by sham training
Same procedures as track 1, but completed in opposite order, starting with sham condition followed by the non-paretic arm training
Other Names:
  • sham condition followed by remediation of non-paretic arm
Sham Comparator: Track 2
Sham condition (playing board games/computer games) for 3 weeks followed by training of the non-paretic arm for 3 weeks consisting of occupational therapy and kinematic tasks
Training of non-paretic arm followed by sham condition
Other Names:
  • remediation of non-paretic arm followed by sham training
Same procedures as track 1, but completed in opposite order, starting with sham condition followed by the non-paretic arm training
Other Names:
  • sham condition followed by remediation of non-paretic arm

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in performance time on Jebsen Taylor Hand Function Test
Time Frame: week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
test of unimanual arm function on the non-paretic arm
week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change in Barthel Index
Time Frame: week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
measure of functional independence
week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
Change in Kinematic analysis
Time Frame: week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
Distance and Direction Errors and Hand Path Straightness on virtual reaching task (non-paretic arm)
week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
Change in Grooved Pegboard
Time Frame: week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
timed measure of dexterity of the non-paretic arm
week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
Change in Upper Extremity Fugl Meyer Assessment
Time Frame: week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9
test of paretic arm function
week -3, week 0, week 3, week 6, week 9

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Robert Sainburg, Phd, Penn State College of Medicine, Penn State University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

August 20, 2016

Primary Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2018

Study Completion (Actual)

December 1, 2018

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

October 20, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

February 20, 2017

First Posted (Actual)

February 24, 2017

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 28, 2019

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 26, 2019

Last Verified

March 1, 2019

More Information

Terms related to this study

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

YES

IPD Plan Description

Scholar Sphere

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe