Characterising Arm Recovery in People with Severe Stroke (CARPSS): protocol for a 12-month observational study of clinical, neuroimaging and neurophysiological biomarkers

Kathryn S Hayward, Keith R Lohse, Julie Bernhardt, Catherine E Lang, Lara A Boyd, Kathryn S Hayward, Keith R Lohse, Julie Bernhardt, Catherine E Lang, Lara A Boyd

Abstract

Introduction: In individuals with early (indexed ≤7 days poststroke) and severe upper limb paresis (shoulder abduction and finger extension score of <5 out of 10), our objectives are to: (1) determine if biomarkers of brain structure and function collected at <1 month poststroke explain who will experience clinically important recovery over the first 12 months poststroke; (2) compare stroke survivors' perceptions of personally meaningful recovery to clinically important recovery; and (3) characterise the trajectory of change in measures of motor function, brain structure and function.

Methods and analysis: Prospective observational study with an inception cohort of 78 first-time stroke survivors. Participants will be recruited from a single, large tertiary stroke referral centre. Clinical and biomarker assessments will be completed at four follow-up time points: 2 to 4 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months poststroke. Our primary outcome is achievement of clinically important improvement on two out of three measures that span impairment (Fugl-Meyer Upper Limb, change ≥10 points), activity (Motor Assessment Scale item 6, change ≥1 point) and participation (Rating of Everyday Arm-use in the Community and Home, change ≥1 point). Brain biomarkers of structure and function will be indexed using transcranial magnetic stimulation and MRI. Multilevel modelling will be performed to examine the relationship between clinically important recovery achieved (yes/no) and a priori defined brain biomarkers related to the corticospinal tract and corpus callosum. Secondary analyses will compare stroke survivor's perception of recovery, as well as real-world arm use via accelerometry, to the proposed metric of clinically meaningful recovery; and model trajectory of recovery across clinical, a priori defined biomarkers and exploratory variables related to functional connectivity.

Ethics and dissemination: Approved by the hospital and university ethics review boards. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

Trial registration number: NCT02464085.

Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging; rehabilitation medicine; stroke; stroke medicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

References

    1. Nakayama H, Jørgensen HS, Raaschou HO, et al. . 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. Winters C, Heymans MW, van Wegen EE, et al. . How to design clinical rehabilitation trials for the upper paretic limb early post stroke? Trials 2016;17:468 10.1186/s13063-016-1592-x
    1. Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, et al. . Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol 2015;78:848–59. 10.1002/ana.24472
    1. Boyd LA, Hayward KS, Ward NS, et al. . Biomarkers of stroke recovery: consensus-based core recommendations from the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017;12:480–93. 10.1177/1747493017714176
    1. Hayward KS, Schmidt J, Lohse KR, et al. . Are we armed with the right data? Pooled individual data review of biomarkers in people with severe upper limb impairment after stroke. Neuroimage Clin 2017;13:310–9. 10.1016/j.nicl.2016.09.015
    1. Stinear CM, Byblow WD, Ackerley SJ, et al. . PREP2: A biomarker-based algorithm for predicting upper limb function after stroke. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 2017;4:811–20. 10.1002/acn3.488
    1. Zarahn E, Alon L, Ryan SL, et al. . Prediction of motor recovery using initial impairment and fMRI 48 h poststroke. Cereb Cortex 2011;21:2712–21. 10.1093/cercor/bhr047
    1. Hendricks HT, Pasman JW, Merx JL, et al. . Analysis of recovery processes after stroke by means of transcranial magnetic stimulation. J Clin Neurophysiol 2003;20:188–95. 10.1097/00004691-200305000-00004
    1. van Kuijk AA, Pasman JW, Hendricks HT, et al. . Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2009;23:45–51. 10.1177/1545968308317578
    1. Burke Quinlan E, Dodakian L, See J, et al. . Neural function, injury, and stroke subtype predict treatment gains after stroke. Ann Neurol 2015;77:132–45. 10.1002/ana.24309
    1. Feng W, Wang J, Chhatbar PY, et al. . Corticospinal tract lesion load: an imaging biomarker for stroke motor outcomes. Ann Neurol 2015;78:860–70. 10.1002/ana.24510
    1. Bigourdan A, Munsch F, Coupé P, et al. . Early fiber number ratio is a surrogate of corticospinal tract integrity and predicts motor recovery after stroke. Stroke 2016;47:1053–9. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011576
    1. Hayward KS, Ferris J, Lohse KR, et al. . Biomarkers of upper limb outcome post-stroke: One-size-fits-all? International Journal of Stroke. Conference Proceedings 2018.
    1. Hayward KS, Neva JL, Mang CS, et al. . Interhemispheric pathways are important for motor outcome in individuals with chronic and severe upper limb impairment post stroke. Neural Plast 2017;2017:1–12. 10.1155/2017/4281532
    1. McPherson JG, Chen A, Ellis MD, et al. . Progressive recruitment of contralesional cortico-reticulospinal pathways drives motor impairment post stroke. J Physiol 2018;596:1211–25. 10.1113/JP274968
    1. Quinlan EB, Dodakian L, See J, et al. . Biomarkers of rehabilitation therapy vary according to stroke severity. Neural Plast 2018;2018:1–8. 10.1155/2018/9867196
    1. Cortes JC, Goldsmith J, Harran MD, et al. . A Short and distinct time window for recovery of arm motor control early after stroke revealed with a global measure of trajectory kinematics. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2017;31:552–60. 10.1177/1545968317697034
    1. Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, et al. . Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke 1992;23:1084–9. 10.1161/01.STR.23.8.1084
    1. Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, et al. . Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce. Int J Stroke 2017;12:444–50. 10.1177/1747493017711816
    1. Ganesh A, Gutnikov SA, Rothwell PM. Late functional improvement after lacunar stroke: a population-based study. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018:jnnp-2018-318434 10.1136/jnnp-2018-318434
    1. Kwakkel G, Lannin NA, Borschmann K, et al. . Standardized measurement of sensorimotor recovery in stroke trials: consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable. Int J Stroke 2017;12:451–61. 10.1177/1747493017711813
    1. Lang CE, Edwards DF, Birkenmeier RL, et al. . Estimating minimal clinically important differences of upper-extremity measures early after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2008;89:1693–700. 10.1016/j.apmr.2008.02.022
    1. Platz T, Pinkowski C, van Wijck F, et al. . Reliability and validity of arm function assessment with standardized guidelines for the fugl-meyer test, action research arm test and box and block test: a multicentre study. Clin Rehabil 2005;19:404–11. 10.1191/0269215505cr832oa
    1. Duncan PW, Propst M, Nelson SG. Reliability of the Fugl-Meyer assessment of sensorimotor recovery following cerebrovascular accident. Phys Ther 1983;63:1606–10. 10.1093/ptj/63.10.1606
    1. Dean C, Mackey F. Motor assessment scale scores as a measure of rehabilitation outcome following stroke. Aust J Physiother 1992;38:31–5. 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60548-1
    1. Hayward KS, Kuys SS, Barker RN, et al. . Can stroke survivors with severe upper arm disability achieve a clinically important change in arm function during inpatient rehabilitation? A multicentre, prospective, observational study. NeuroRehabilitation 2014;35:773–9. 10.3233/NRE-141096
    1. Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Backman CL, et al. . Rating of Everyday Arm-Use in the Community and Home (REACH) scale for capturing affected arm-use after stroke: development, reliability, and validity. PLoS One 2013;8:e83405 10.1371/journal.pone.0083405
    1. Mang CS, Borich MR, Brodie SM, et al. . Diffusion imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation assessment of transcallosal pathways in chronic stroke. Clin Neurophysiol 2015;126:1959–71. 10.1016/j.clinph.2014.12.018
    1. Zabukovec JR, Boyd LA, Linsdell MA, et al. . Changes in corticospinal excitability following adaptive modification to human walking. Exp Brain Res 2013;226:557–64. 10.1007/s00221-013-3468-6
    1. Feldman SJ, Boyd LA, Neva JL, et al. . Extraction of corticospinal tract microstructural properties in chronic stroke. J Neurosci Methods 2018;301:34–42. 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2018.03.001
    1. Hofer S, Frahm J. Topography of the human corpus callosum revisited-comprehensive fiber tractography using diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage 2006;32:989–94. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.05.044
    1. Bailey RR, Klaesner JW, Lang CE. Quantifying real-world upper-limb activity in nondisabled adults and adults with chronic stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair 2015;29:969–78. 10.1177/1545968315583720
    1. Duncan PW, Wallace D, Lai SM, et al. . The stroke impact scale version 2.0. Evaluation of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. Stroke 1999;30:2131–40.
    1. Golicki D, Niewada M, Karlińska A, et al. . Comparing responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-3L and EQ VAS in stroke patients. Qual Life Res 2015;24:1555–63. 10.1007/s11136-014-0873-7
    1. Law M, Baptiste S, McColl M, et al. . The canadian occupational performance measure: an outcome measure for occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy 1990;57:82–7. 10.1177/000841749005700207
    1. Kamper SJ, Maher CG, Mackay G. Global rating of change scales: a review of strengths and weaknesses and considerations for design. J Man Manip Ther 2009;17:163–70. 10.1179/jmt.2009.17.3.163
    1. Barker RN, Brauer SG. Upper limb recovery after stroke: the stroke survivors’ perspective. Disabil Rehabil 2005;27:1213–23. 10.1080/09638280500075717
    1. Barker RN, Gill TJ, Brauer SG. Factors contributing to upper limb recovery after stroke: a survey of stroke survivors in Queensland Australia. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:981–9. 10.1080/09638280500243570
    1. Donohue MC, Edland SD. longpower: power and sample size calculators for longitudinal data R package version, 2016:10–16.
    1. Liu G, Liang KY. Sample size calculations for studies with correlated observations. Biometrics 1997;53:937–47. 10.2307/2533554
    1. Diggle PJ, Heagerty PJ, Liang K, et al. . Analysis of longitudinal data. 2nd: Oxford Statistical Science Series, 2002.
    1. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera