e98Purpose-The aim of this guideline is to provide a synopsis of best clinical practices in the rehabilitative care of adults recovering from stroke. Methods-Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council's Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the AHA's Manuscript Oversight Committee. The panel reviewed relevant articles on adults using computerized searches of the medical literature through 2014. The evidence is organized within the context of the AHA framework and is classified according to the joint AHA/American College of Cardiology and supplementary AHA methods of classifying the level of certainty and the class and level of evidence. The document underwent extensive AHA internal and external peer review, Stroke Council Leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Results-Stroke rehabilitation requires a sustained and coordinated effort from a large team, including the patient and his or her goals, family and friends, other caregivers (eg, personal care attendants), physicians, nurses, physical and occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, recreation therapists, psychologists, nutritionists, social workers, and others. Communication and coordination among these team members are paramount in maximizing the effectiveness
Background Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, −0.14 points; 95% CI, −2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, −8.10 seconds; 95% CI, −13.61 to −2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)
Background and Purpose-Rehabilitation care after stroke is highly variable and increasingly shorter in duration. The effect of therapeutic exercise on impairments and functional limitations after stroke is not clear. The objective of this study was to determine whether a structured, progressive, physiologically based exercise program for subacute stroke produces gains greater than those attributable to spontaneous recovery and usual care. Methods-This randomized, controlled, single-blind clinical trial was conducted in a metropolitan area and 17 participating healthcare institutions. We included persons with stroke who were living in the community. One hundred patients (mean age, 70 years; mean Orpington score, 3.4) consented and were randomized from a screened sample of 582. Ninety-two subjects completed the trial. Intervention was a structured, progressive, physiologically based, therapist-supervised, in-home program of thirty-six 90-minute sessions over 12 weeks targeting flexibility, strength, balance, endurance, and upper-extremity function. Main outcome measures were postintervention strength (ankle and knee isometric peak torque, grip strength), upper-and lower-extremity motor control (Fugl Meyer), balance (Berg and functional reach), endurance (peak aerobic capacity and exercise duration), upper-extremity function (Wolf Motor Function Test), and mobility (timed 10-m walk and 6-minute walk distance). Results-In the intention-to-treat multivariate analysis of variance testing the overall effect, the intervention produced greater gains than usual care (Wilk's ϭ0.64, Pϭ0.0056). Both intervention and usual care groups improved in strength, balance, upper-and lower-extremity motor control, upper-extremity function, and gait velocity. Gains for the intervention group exceeded those in the usual care group in balance, endurance, peak aerobic capacity, and mobility. Upper-extremity gains exceeded those in the usual care group only in patients with higher baseline function. Conclusions-This structured, progressive program of therapeutic exercise in persons who had completed acute rehabilitation services produced gains in endurance, balance, and mobility beyond those attributable to spontaneous recovery and usual care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.