Arm-Hand Boost Therapy During Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Sarah Meyer, Geert Verheyden, Kristof Kempeneers, Marc Michielsen, Sarah Meyer, Geert Verheyden, Kristof Kempeneers, Marc Michielsen

Abstract

Objective: It was the aim to assess feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of a new intensive, focused arm-hand BOOST program and to investigate whether there is a difference between early vs. late delivery of the program in the sub-acute phase post stroke. Methods: In this pilot RCT, patients with stroke were randomized to the immediate group (IG): 4 weeks (4 w) BOOST +4 w CONTROL or the delayed group (DG): 4 w CONTROL +4 w BOOST, on top of their usual inpatient care program. The focused arm-hand BOOST program (1 h/day, 5x/week, 4 weeks) consisted of group exercises with focus on scapula-setting, core-stability, manipulation and complex ADL tasks. Additionally, 1 h per week the Armeo®Power (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) was used. The CONTROL intervention comprised a dose-matched program (24 one-hour sessions in 4 w) of lower limb strengthening exercises and general reconditioning. At baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of training, the Fugl-Meyer assessment upper extremity (FMA-UE), action research arm test (ARAT), and stroke upper limb capacity scale (SULCS) were administered. Results: Eighteen participants (IG: n = 10, DG: n = 8) were included, with a median (IQR) time post stroke of 8.6 weeks (5-12). No adverse events were experienced. After 4 weeks of training, significant between-group differences were found for FMA-UE (p = 0.003) and SULCS (p = 0.033) and a trend for ARAT (p = 0.075) with median (IQR) change scores for the IG of 9 (7-16), 2 (1-3), and 12.5 (1-18), respectively, and for the DG of 0.5 (-3 to 3), 1 (0-1), and 1.5 (-1 to 9), respectively. In the IG, 80% of patients improved beyond the minimal clinical important difference of FMA-UE after 4 weeks, compared to none of the DG patients. Between 4 and 8 weeks of training, patients in the DG tend to show larger improvements when compared to the IG, however, between-group comparisons did not reach significance. Conclusions: Results of this pilot RCT showed that an intensive, specific arm-hand BOOST program, on top of usual care, is feasible and safe in the sub-acute phase post stroke and suggests positive, clinical meaningful effects on upper limb function, especially when delivered in the early sub-acute phase post stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04584177.

Keywords: inpatients; randomized controlled (clinical) trial; rehabilitation; stroke; upper extremity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2021 Meyer, Verheyden, Kempeneers and Michielsen.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Individual change scores in FMA-UE between BASELINE and POST 1 (A) and between POST 1 and POST 2 (B).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Individual change scores in ARAT between BASELINE and POST 1 (A) and between POST 1 and POST 2 (B).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Individual change scores in BBT between BASELINE and POST 1 (A) and between POST 1 and POST 2 (B).

References

    1. Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, Olsen TS. Recovery of upper extremity function in stroke patients: the Copenhagen Stroke Study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (1994) 75:394–8. 10.1016/0003-9993(94)90161-9
    1. Taub E, Uswatte G, Mark VW, Morris DM. The learned nonuse phenomenon: implications for rehabilitation. Eura Medicophys. (2006) 42:241–55. Available online at:
    1. Nichols-Larsen DS, Clark PC, Zeringue A, Greenspan A, Blanton S. Factors influencing stroke survivors' quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke. (2005) 36:1480–4. 10.1161/01.STR.0000170706.13595.4f
    1. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke – consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke. (2014) 9:313–20. 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00942.x
    1. Rudberg AS, Berge E, Laska AC, Jutterström S, Näsman P, Sunnerhagen KS, et al. . Stroke survivors' priorities for research related to life after stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil. (2020) 2:153–8. 10.1080/10749357.2020.1789829
    1. Stinear CM, Lang CE, Zeiler S, Byblow WD. Advances and challenges in stroke rehabilitation. Lancet Neurol. (2020) 19:348–60. 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30415-6
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. (2004) 22:281–99. Available online at:
    1. Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke. (2006) 37:2348–53. 10.1161/01.STR.0000238594.91938.1e
    1. Biernaskie J, Chernenko G, Corbett D. Efficacy of rehabilitative experience declines with time after focal ischemic brain injury. J Neurosci. (2004) 24:1245–54. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3834-03.2004
    1. Michielsen M, Janssens E, Bossuyt M, Cypers K, Daems G, Thijs L, et al. . JSU-Diagram: a guideline for treatment of the upper limb in stroke patients. Int J Phys Med Rehabil. (2015) 3:280. 10.4172/2329-9096.1000280
    1. Michielsen M, Vaughan-Graham J, Holland A, Magri A, Suzuki M. The Bobath concept – a model to illustrate clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil. (2019) 41:2080–92. 10.1080/09638288.2017.1417496
    1. Vaughan-Graham J, Cott C, Holland A, Michielsen M, Magri A, Suzuki M, et al. . Developing a revised definition of the Bobath concept. Physiother Res Int. (2019) 24:e1762. 10.1002/pri.1762
    1. Vaughan-Graham J, Cheryl C, Holland A, Michielsen M, Magri A, Suzuki M, et al. . Developing a revised definition of the Bobath concept: phase three. Physiother Res Int. (2020) 25:e1832. 10.1002/pri.1832
    1. Haruyama K, Kawakami M, Otsuka T. Effect of core stability training on trunk function, standing balance, and mobility in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2017) 31:240–9. 10.1177/1545968316675431
    1. Harbourne R, Kamm K. Upper extremity function: what's posture got to do with it? J Hand Ther. (2015) 28:106–2. 10.1016/j.jht.2015.01.008
    1. McQuade KJ, Borstad J, de Oliveira AS. Critical and theoretical perspective on scapular stabilization: what does it really mean, and are we on the right track? Phys Ther. (2016) 96:1162–9. 10.2522/ptj.20140230
    1. Mottram SL. Dynamic stability of the scapula. Man Ther. (1997) 2:123–31. 10.1054/math.1997.0292
    1. Kibler WB, Sciascia A, Wilkes T. Scapular dyskinesis and its relation to shoulder injury. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. (2012) 20:364–72. 10.5435/JAAOS-20-06-364
    1. De Baets L, Jaspers E, Desloovere K, Van Deun S. A systematic review of 3D scapular kinematics and muscle activity during elevation in stroke subjects and controls. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. (2013) 23:3–13. 10.1016/j.jelekin.2012.06.007
    1. Kisiel-Sajewicz K, Fang Y, Hrovat K, Yue GH, Siemionow V, Sun CK, et al. . Weakening of synergist muscle coupling during reaching movement in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2011) 25:359–68. 10.1177/1545968310388665
    1. Barker RN, Brauer S, Carson R. Training-induced changes in the pattern of triceps to biceps activation during reaching tasks after chronic and severe stroke. Exp Brain Res. (2009) 196:483–96. 10.1007/s00221-009-1872-8
    1. Feys H, De Weerdt W, Verbeke G, Steck GC, Capiau C, Kiekens C, et al. . 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) 35:924–9. 10.1161/01.STR.0000121645.44752.f7
    1. Sangole AP, Levin MF. Arches of the hand in reach to grasp. J Biomech. (2008) 41:829–37. 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.11.006
    1. Sangole AP, Levin MF. A new perspective in the understanding of hand dysfunction following neurological injury. Top Stroke Rehabil. (2007) 14:80–94. 10.1310/tsr1403-80
    1. Sangole AP, Levin MF. Palmar arch modulation in patients with hemiparesis after a stroke. Exp Brain Res. (2009) 199:59–70. 10.1007/s00221-009-1972-5
    1. Cooke EV, Mares K, Clark A, Tallis RC, Pomeroy VM. The effects of increased dose of exercise-based therapies to enhance motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med. (2010) 8:60. 10.1186/1741-7015-8-60
    1. Lohse KR, Lang CE, Boyd LA. Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. (2014) 45:2053–8. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.004695
    1. Dobkin BH. Clinical practice. Rehabilitation after stroke. N Engl J Med. (2005) 352:1677–84. 10.1056/NEJMcp043511
    1. Lang CE, Macdonald JR, Reisman DS, Boyd L, Jacobson Kimberley T, Schindler-Ivens SM, et al. . Observation of amounts of movement practice provided during stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2009) 90:1692–8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.04.005
    1. Krakauer JW, Kitago T, Goldsmith J, Ahmad O, Roy P, Stein J, et al. . Comparing a novel neuroanimation experience to conventional therapy for high-dose, intensive upper-limb training in subacute stroke: the SMARTS2 randomized trial. MedRxiv [Preprint]. (2020). 10.1101/2020.08.04.20152538
    1. Ward NS, Brander F, Kelly K. Intensive upper limb neurorehabilitation in chronic stroke: outcomes from the queen square programme. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (2019) 90:498–506. 10.1136/jnnp-2018-319954
    1. Daly JJ, McCabe JP, Holcomb J, Monkiewicz M, Gansen J, Pundik S. Long-Dose intensive therapy is necessary for strong, clinically significant, upper limb functional gains and retained gains in severe/moderate chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2019) 33:523–37. 10.1177/1545968319846120
    1. McCabe J, Monkiewicz M, Holcomb J, Pundik S, Daly JJ. Comparison of robotics, functional electrical stimulation, and motor learning methods for treatment of persistent upper extremity dysfunction after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2015) 96:981–90. 10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.022
    1. Mawase F, Cherry-Allen KM, Xu J, Anaya M, Uehara S, Celnik P. Pushing the rehabiltiation boundaries: hand motor impairment can be reduced in chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2020) 34:733–45. 10.1177/1545968320939563
    1. Orsmond GI, Cohn ES. The distinctive features of a feasibility study: objectives and guiding questions. OTJR. (2015) 35:169–77. 10.1177/1539449215578649
    1. WHO MONICA Project Principal Investigators . The World Health Organization MONICA project (monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease): a major international collaboration. Clin Epidemiol. (1988) 41:105–14. 10.1016/0895-4356(88)90084-4
    1. Collin C, Wade D. Assessing motor impairment after stroke: a pilot reliability study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. (1990) 53:576–9. 10.1136/jnnp.53.7.576
    1. See J, Dodakian L, Chou C, Chan V, McKenzie A, Reinkensmeyer DJ, et al. . A standardized approach to the fugl-meyer assessment and its implications for clinical trials. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2013) 27:732–41. 10.1177/1545968313491000
    1. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J. (1965) 14:61–5. 10.1037/t02366-000
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. . The montreal cognitive assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. (2005) 53:695–9. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
    1. Friedman PJ. The star cancellation test in acute stroke. Clin Rehabil. (1992) 6:23–30. 10.1177/026921559200600104
    1. Lyle RC. A performance test for assessment of upper limb function in physical rehabilitation treatment and research. Int J Rehabil Res. (1981) 4:483–92. 10.1097/00004356-198112000-00001
    1. Roorda LD, Houwink A, Smits W, Molenaar IW, Geurts AC. Measuring upper limb capacity in poststroke patients: development, fit of the monotone homogeneity model, unidimensionality, fit of the double monotonicity model, differential item functioning, internal consistency, and feasibility of the stroke upper limb capacity scale, SULCS. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2011) 92:214–27. 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.10.034
    1. Mathiowetz V, Volland G, Kashman N, Weber K. Adult norms for the box and block test of manual dexterity. Am J Occup Ther. (1985) 39:386–91. 10.5014/ajot.39.6.386
    1. Jebsen RH, Taylor N, Trieschmann RB, Trotter MJ, Howard LA. An objective and standardized test of hand function. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (1969) 50:311–9.
    1. Lincoln N, Leadbitter D. Assessment of motor function in stroke patients. Physiotherapy. (1979) 65:48–51.
    1. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, English C, Ali M, Churilov L, et al. . Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2017) 31:784–92. 10.1177/1545968317732662
    1. Lin JH, Hsu MJ, Sheu CF, Wu TS, Lin RT, Chen CH, et al. . Psychometric comparisons of 4 measures for assessing upper extremity function in people with stroke. Phys Ther. (2009) 89:840–50. 10.2522/ptj.20080285
    1. World Health Organization . International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: ICF. (2001). Available online at: (accessed December 1, 2020).
    1. Connell LA, Tyson SF. Clinical reality of measuring upper-limb ability in neurologic conditions: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. (2012) 93:221–8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.09.015
    1. Waddell KJ, Birkenmeier RL, Moore JL, Hornby TG, Lang CE. Feasibility of high-repetition, task-specific training for individuals with upper-extremity paresis. Am J Occup Ther. (2014) 68:444–53. 10.5014/ajot.2014.011619
    1. Perna R, Harik L. The role of rehabilitation psychology in stroke care described through case examples. NeuroRehabilitation. (2020) 46:195–204. 10.3233/NRE-192970
    1. Meyer S, Verheyden G, Brinkmann N, Dejaeger E, De Weerdt W, Feys H, et al. . Functional and motor outcome 5 years after stroke is equivalent to outcome at 2 months: follow-up of the collaborative evaluation of rehabilitation in stroke across Europe. Stroke. (2015) 46:1613–9. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.009421
    1. Verheyden G, Nieuwboer A, De Wit L, Thijs V, Dobbelaere J, Devos H, et al. . Time course of trunk, arm, leg, and functional recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2008) 22:173–9. 10.1177/1545968307305456
    1. Conroy SS, Wittenberg GF, Krebs HI, Zhan M, Bever CT, Whitall J. Robot-Assisted arm training in chronic stroke: addition of transition-to-task practice. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2019) 33:751–61. 10.1177/1545968319862558
    1. Maier M, Rubio Ballester B, Duff A, Duarte Oller E, Verschure PFMJ. Effect of specific over nonspecific VR-based rehabilitation on poststroke motor recovery: a systematic meta-analysis. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. (2019) 33:112–29. 10.1177/1545968318820169
    1. Hayward KS, Kramer SF, Thijs V, Ratcliffe J, Ward NS, Churilov L, et al. . A systematic review protocol of timing, efficacy and cost effectiveness of upper limb therapy for motor recovery post-stroke. Syst Rev. (2019) 8:187. 10.1186/s13643-019-1093-6

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever