Early Stroke Rehabilitation is Initiated, although most Motor Rehabilitation Trials are not

Karsten Specht^*
*Correspondence: Karsten Specht, Department of Biological and Medical Psychology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway, Email:

Description

In affluent nations, stroke is the third most common cause of death and the leading cause of acquired adult disability. Following a stroke, motor impairment is prevalent and has a significant impact on the patient's capacity for independent living. Using animal models, the neurobiological mechanisms of plasticity and spontaneous recovery during the first several weeks and days after stroke have been fairly well defined. These methods include cell development, functional flexibility, and structural modifications including synaptogenesis and axonal sprouting. The characteristics of these processes and their time course correspond to the trajectory of motor recovery seen in human patients, the majority of whom reach their recovery plateau within three months of a stroke. During this time, rehabilitation is largely provided in order to take advantage of the special physiological conditions present and mould the patient's natural recovery process for their benefit. Novel treatments that engage with and support the underlying mechanisms of spontaneous recovery are expected to improve recovery of function [1].

Over the past three decades, a number of neurorehabilitation strategies aiming at enhancing motor recovery following stroke have been developed and tested. These include biofeedback, robotics, virtual reality, motor imagery, noninvasive brain stimulation, pharmaceuticals, constraint-induced movement therapy, and biofeedback. In spite of approximately 1000 randomised control studies (RCTs) in stroke rehabilitation, however, there has been relatively little implementation of this body of knowledge in clinical practise. The variability of deficits following stroke and the complexity of their interactions with factors affecting recovery, as well as limited collaboration between scientists, doctors, patient groups, and industry, pose challenges to research attempts to develop the evidence base. Even when the establishment of clinical guidelines is supported by the research evidence base, major implementation challenges persist.

Reviews of stroke rehabilitation frequently point out the necessity of conducting research in actual clinical settings. However, they rarely include information on when RCTs were conducted relative to the time of stroke onset. Similar to this, Cochrane reviews frequently base their judgments regarding an intervention's effectiveness on RCTs conducted at any point following a stroke. These findings are then utilised to create recommendations for starting therapy as soon as is safe following a stroke. One significant component of the evidence base that may restrict its application to clinical practise is a mismatch between the timing of RCTs and the delivery of stroke therapy in the real world [2].

The first 30 days following a stroke are crucial for the start of treatment. Similar to how waiting longer to start rehabilitation results in lower outcomes, delaying the start of an RCT may reduce the effectiveness of the novel treatment being investigated. The body of evidence supporting novel therapies started within the first month of a stroke has not been assessed. Recovery of motor function is a typical goal following a stroke, and RCTs in this field are probably reasonably representative of the body of research on stroke rehabilitation. This review's objective was to quantify the proportion of motor rehabilitation RCTs that were started within 30 days of the stroke and describe these trials [3].

This is a systematic review of RCTs looking at adjuvants and rehabilitation therapy, with voluntary motor function after stroke as the primary end measure. Trials were disqualified if they contained a paediatric sample, had not been published in English, or were primarily intended to treat secondary motor problems such spasticity or shoulder subluxation. Searches in PubMed and the Evidence-Based Review of Stroke Rehabilitation turned up studies. Depending on how soon after a stroke each person was enrolled, these trials were classified as early, late, or chronic. All patients were included in early trials no later than 30 days after a stroke, late studies no later than 180 days after a stroke, and patients were involved in chronic studies no later than 180 days after a stroke [4].

Trials needed to have a dose-matched control intervention to compare to the experimental intervention and masked clinical assessments in order to be judged high quality in the current study. Each early study was subjected to the application of these criteria by two independent reviewers, with any discrepancies being settled by a third reviewer as needed. Studies on feasibility that only used the experimental therapy once were disqualified. Two independent reviewers further assessed high-quality early studies to determine the sample size, the type and length of the intervention, the timing of follow-up evaluations, and whether the outcome was favourable [5].

Discussion

RCTs for motor rehabilitation make up about 6% of the total and are started when most rehabilitation takes place. Less than one-third of this research examined the mechanisms of the intervention, and studies with favourable results enrolled fewer patients and were more likely to develop follow-up plans than studies with negative results. Only 15 positive, high-quality RCTs, many of which are constrained by small sample numbers and a lack of follow-up measurements, make up the evidence basis for new motor rehabilitation approaches implemented quickly after stroke. This study shows that, despite the development of a number of innovative therapies and adjuvants for motor rehabilitation following stroke, we still know very little about how they interact with the spontaneous healing process or about any potential long-term advantages [5].

Conclusion

The majority of the early evidence base's high-quality research was RCTs of pharmacological drugs and conventional therapy, which make up twothirds of the early studies of good quality, which were found. This may not come as a surprise because healthcare professionals who specialise in the stroke rehabilitation field are familiar with and skilled in using these methods. Techniques including electro stimulation, constraint-induced movement therapy, and robotics have a limited early evidence base. Clinical guidelines, however, which are meant to be adopted from the start of rehabilitation, advocate these interventions. Our goal is to refocus efforts on integrating developments in neuroscience into stroke rehabilitation therapy by highlighting this incongruity and the limitations of the early evidence base.

There are at least three potential advantages to designing rehabilitation RCTs to enrol and randomly assign patients to start the intervention within 30 days following stroke. The first is that additional research must be done in the particular physiological settings that encourage spontaneous healing in the initial weeks following a stroke. In our analysis, we discovered that the majority of motor rehabilitation RCTs involves patients who had experienced a stroke for at least six months. The most successful therapies, however, might be those that support and interact with the natural healing process. This crucial stage of spontaneous biological change, which could increase profits, is currently all but disregarded.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1. Wieloch, Tadeusz and Karoly Nikolich. "Mechanisms of neural plasticity following brain injury." Curr Opin Neurobiol 16 (2006): 258-264.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

2. Murphy, Timothy H and Dale Corbett. "Plasticity during stroke recovery: From synapse to behaviour." Nat Rev Neurosci 10 (2009): 861-872.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

3. Kreisel, Stefan H., Michael G. Hennerici and Hansjörg Bäzner. "Pathophysiology of stroke rehabilitation: The natural course of clinical recovery, use-dependent plasticity and rehabilitative outcome." Cerebrovasc Dis 23 (2007): 243-255.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

4. Langhorne, Peter, Fiona Coupar and Alex Pollock. "Motor recovery after stroke: A systematic review." Lancet Neurol 8 (2009): 741-754.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at

5. Teasell, Robert. "Challenges in the implementation of evidence in stroke rehabilitation." Top Stroke Rehabil 19 (2012): 93-95.

Google Scholar, Crossref, Indexed at