Factors Related to Greater Functional Recovery after Suffering a Stroke †
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
2.2. Sample
2.3. Variables and Functional Assessment
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. The Characteristics of the Sample
Mean ± SD | Median [Range] | ||
---|---|---|---|
Age (years) | 66.8 ± 12.0 | 69.0 [22–91] | |
Length of stay (days) | 78.7 ± 49.0 | 73.0 [3–280] | |
n [%] | 95% CI | ||
Type of stroke | Ischemic | 256 [70.1] | [65.3–74.9] |
Hemorrhagic | 109 [29.9] | [25.0–34.7] | |
Gender | Male | 227 [62.2] | [57.1–67.3] |
Female | 138 [37.8] | [32.7–42.9] | |
Area | Countryside | 182 [49.9] | [44.6–55.1] |
Urban | 183 [50.1] | [44.9–55.4] | |
Activities of daily living | Independent | 280 [76.7] | [72.2–81.2] |
Not independent | 85 [23.3] | [18.8–27.8] | |
Service of origin | Neurology | 152 [41.6] | [36.5–46.8] |
Others services | 213 [58.4] | [53.2–63.6] | |
Brain injury localization | Supratentorial | 311 [85.2] | [81.4–89.0] |
Infratentorial | 54 [14.8] | [11.0–18.6] | |
Laterality | Left | 176 [48.2] | [43.0–53.5] |
Right | 172 [47.1] | [41.9–52.4] | |
Bilateral | 17 [4.7] | [2.6–6.9] | |
Language disorder | Dysarthria | 94 [25.8] | [21.1–30.4] |
Aphasia | 80 [21.9] | [17.5–26.3] | |
Rehabilitation treatments | Physiotherapy | 365 [100.0] | [99.0–100.0] |
Occupational therapy | 85 [23.3] | [18.8–27.8] | |
Speech therapy | 56 [15.3] | [11.5–19.2] | |
Destination at discharge | Family home | 330 [90.7] | [87.3–93.6] |
Care centers | 34 [9.3] | [6.2–12.4] |
3.2. Functionality of the Patients
N | Mean ± SD | p | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Women | 138 | 81.5 ± 26.0 | 0.273 |
Men | 227 | 84.6 ± 26.4 | ||
Age | <60 years old (women:29; men: 74) | 103 | 83.0 ± 27.8 | 0.053 |
60–70 years old (women: 37; men: 62) | 99 | 88.7 ± 22.4 | ||
>70 years (women: 72; men: 91) | 163 | 80.5 ± 27.1 | ||
Area | Urban | 183 | 84.4 ± 26.8 | 0.466 |
Countryside | 182 | 82.4 ± 25.8 | ||
Previously independent | Yes | 280 | 85.3 ± 25.5 | 0.014 |
No | 85 | 77.3 ± 28.0 | ||
Service of origin | Neurology | 152 | 91.2 ± 21.1 | <0.001 |
Others | 213 | 77.9 ± 28.2 | ||
Language disorder | Aphasia | 80 | 67.0 ± 23.0 | <0.001 |
Not aphasia | 285 | 88.0 ± 25.3 | ||
Occupational therapy | Executed | 85 | 80.6 ± 23.5 | 0.266 |
Not executed | 280 | 84.3 ± 27.0 | ||
Speech therapy | Executed | 56 | 68.9 ± 25.7 | <0.001 |
Not executed | 309 | 86.1 ± 25.7 |
3.3. Functionality of the Sample and Functionality According to the Etiology of the Stroke
Total | Ischemic | Hemorrhagic | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
FIM | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | p |
Admission Motor | 33.7 ± 18.1 | 34.6 ± 18.0 | 31.6 ± 18.4 | 0.141 |
Admission Cognitive | 18.8 ± 10.2 | 19.6 ± 10.0 | 16.8 ± 10.5 | 0.016 |
Admission Total | 52.5 ± 25.5 | 54.3 ± 25.4 | 48.4 ± 25.5 | 0.044 |
Discharge Motor | 58.4 ± 19.9 | 59.6 ± 19.4 | 55.5 ± 20.9 | 0.071 |
Discharge Cognitive | 25.0 ± 9.5 | 25.4 ± 8.1 | 24.1 ± 12.1 | 0.284 |
Discharge Total | 83.4 ± 26.3 | 85.1 ± 25.1 | 79.6 ± 28.6 | 0.085 |
Improvement achieved | 30.9 ± 19.1 | 30.8 ± 17.8 | 31.2 ± 21.8 | 0.856 |
3.4. Prediction of Total FIM Score at Discharge
Β | Std. Error | p | IC 95% for β | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Type of stroke [ref: Ischemic] | −1.397 | 2.120 | 0.510 | [−5.566; 2.772] |
Gender [ref: Women] | 0.595 | 1.962 | 0.762 | [−3.263; 4.453] |
Age | −0.64 | 0.082 | 0.439 | [−0.225; 0.098] |
Katz index [Independence] | −2.945 | 2.273 | 0.196 | [−7.415; 1.525] |
FIM on Admission | 0.741 | 0.038 | <0.001 | [0.668; 0.815] |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rensink, M.; Schuurmans, M.; Lindeman, E.; Hafsteinsdottir, T. Task-oriented training in rehabilitation after stroke: Systematic review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2009, 65, 737–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gresham, G.E.; Granger, C.V.; Linn, R.T.; Kulas, M.A. Status of functional outcomes for stroke survivors. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 1999, 10, 957–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomasevic, S.; Kopcanski, S.; Mikov, A.; Boskovic, K.; Popovic, S.; Savic, M. Functional status of patients after stroke. Med. Pregl. 2015, 68, 181–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagherpour, R.; Dykstra, D.D.; Barrett, A.M.; Luft, A.R.; Divani, A.A. A comprehensive Neurorehabilitation program should be an Integral part of a Comprehensive Stroke Center. Front. Neurol. 2014, 5, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Dimyan, M.A.; Dobkin, B.H.; Cohen, L.G. Emerging subspecialties: Neurorehabilitation: Training neurologists to retrain the brain. Neurology 2008, 70, e52–e54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Bang, O.Y.; Park, H.Y.; Yoon, J.H.; Yeo, S.H.; Kim, J.W.; Lee, M.A.; Park, M.H.; Lee, P.H.; Joo, I.S.; Huh, K. Predicting the long-term outcome after subacute stroke within the middle cerebral artery territory. J. Clin. Neurol. 2005, 1, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wang, J.; Yu, X.D.; Li, G.Q. Comparative study on short-term and long-term prognostic determinants in patients with acute cerebral infarction. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Med. 2015, 8, 9855–9861. [Google Scholar]
- Meyer, S.; Verheyden, G.; Brinkmann, N.; Dejaeger, E.; De Weerdt, W.; Feys, H.; Gantenbein, A.R.; Jenni, W.; Laenen, A.; Lincoln, N.; 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, 1613–1619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rodgers, H. Stroke. Handb. Clin. Neurol. 2013, 110, 427–433. [Google Scholar]
- Stinear, C.M.; Byblow, W.; Ackerley, S.J.; Barber, P.A.; Smith, M.C. Predicting Recovery Potential for Individual Stroke Patients Increases Rehabilitation Efficiency. Stroke 2017, 48, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adams, H.P., Jr.; Adams, R.J.; Brott, T.; del Zoppo, G.J.; Furlan, A.; Goldstein, L.B.; Grubb, R.L.; Higashida, R.; Kidwell, C.; Kwiatkowski, T.G.; et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with ischemic stroke a scientific statement from the Stroke Council of the American Stroke Association. Stroke 2003, 34, 1056–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Stroke Unit Trialists’ Collaboration. Organized inpatient [stroke unit] care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2002, 4, CD000197. [Google Scholar]
- Thorpe, E.R.; Garret, K.B.; Smith, A.M.; Reneker, J.C.; Phillips, R.S. Outcome measure score predict discharge destination in patients with acute and sub acute stroke: A systematic review and series of meta-analyses. J. Neurol. Phys. Ther. 2018, 42, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stein, J.; Bettger, J.P.; Sicklick, A.; Hedeman, R.; Magdon-Ismail, Z.; Schwamm, L.H. Use of a standardized assessment to predict rehabilitation care after acute stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015, 96, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paolucci, S.; Antonucci, G.; Pratesi, L.; Traballesi, M.; Lubich, S.; Grasso, M.G. Functional outcome in stroke inpatient rehabilitation: Predicting no, low and high response patients. Cerebrovasc. Dis. 1998, 8, 228–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elwood, D.; Rashbaum, I.; Bonder, J.; Pantel, A.; Berliner, J.; Yoon, S.; Purvin, M.; Ben-Roohi, M.; Bansal, A. Length of stay in rehabilitation is associated with admission neurologic deficit and discharge destination. PM R 2009, 1, 147–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, D.M.; Niewczyk, P.; Divita, M.; Markello, S.; Granger, C. Predictors of discharge to acute care after inpatient rehabilitation in severely affected stroke patients. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 91, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Beninato, M.; Gill-Body, K.M.; Salles, S.; Stark, P.C.; Black-Schaffer, R.M.; Stein, J. Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2006, 87, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brock, K.A.; Goldie, P.A.; Grenwood, K.M. Evaluating the effectiveness of stroke rehabilitation: Choosing a discriminative measure. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2002, 83, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Roquer, J.; Rodríguez, A.; Gomis, M. Sex differences in first-ever acute stroke. Stroke 2003, 34, 1581–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Guttmann, A.; Schull, M.J.; Vermeulen, M.J.; Stukel, T.A. Association between waiting times and short-term mortality and hospital admission after departure from emergency department: Population based cohort study from Ontario, Canada. BMJ 2011, 342, d2983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Royal College of Physicians. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. In National Clinical Guideline for Stroke, 4th ed.; Royal College of Physicians: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Salvadori, E.; Papi, G.; Insalat, G.; Rinnoci, V.; Donnini, I.; Martini, M.; Falsini, C.; Hakiki, B.; Romoli, A.; Barboto, C.; et al. Comparison between Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Strokes in Functional Outcome Discharge from an Intensive Rehabilitation Hospital. Diagnostics 2020, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anaya, M.A.; Branscheidt, M. Neurorehabilitation After Stroke. Stroke 2019, 50, e180–e182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Duncan, P.W.; Zorowitz, R.; Bates, B.; Choi, J.Y.; Glasberg, J.J.; Graham, G.D.; Katz, R.C.; Lamberty, K.; Reker, D. Management of adult Stroke Rehabilitation Care: A clinical practice guideline. Stroke 2005, 36, e100–e143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cifu, D.X.; Stewart, D.G. Factors affecting functional outcome after stroke: A critical review of rehabilitation interventions. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1999, 80 (Suppl. S1), S35–S39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nichols-Larsen, D.S.; Clark, P.C.; Zeringue, A.; Greenspan, A.; Blanton, S. Factors influencing stroke survivors’ quality of life during subacute recovery. Stroke 2005, 36, 1480–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katrak, P.H.; Black, D.; Peeva, V. Do stroke patients with intracerebral hemorrhage have a better functional outcome than patients with cerebral infarction. PM R 2009, 1, 427–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langhorne, P.; Coupar, F.; Pollock, A. Motor recovery after stroke: A systematic review. Lancet Neurol. 2009, 8, 741–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Langhorne, P.; Legg, L. Evidence behind stroke rehabilitation. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2003, 74 (Suppl. S4), iv18–iv21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hanger, H.C.; Wilkinson, T.J.; Mears, A. Mears Stroke discharges from a rehabilitation unit: 1-year and 5-year domicile outcomes. Function is important. Intern. Med. J. 2010, 40, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinedo, S.; Erazo, P.; Tejada, P.; Lizarraga, N.; Aycart, J.; Miranda, M.; Zaldibar, B.; Gamio, A.I.; Gomez, I.; Sanmartin, V.; et al. Rehabilitation efficiency and destination on discharge after stroke. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2014, 50, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- López-Espuela, F.; Pedrera-Zamorano, J.D.; Jiménez-Caballero, P.E.; Ramirez-Moreno, J.M.; Portilla-Cuenca, J.C.; Lavado-García, J.M.; Casado-Naranjo, I. Functional Status and Disability in Patients After Acute Stroke: A Longitudinal Study. Am. J. Crit. Care 2016, 225, 144–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ween, J.E.; Alexander, M.P.; D’Esposito, M.; Roberts, M. Factors predictive of stroke outcome in a rehabilitation setting. Neurology 1996, 47, 388–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moroney, J.T.; Desmond, D.W. Predictors in stroke outcome. Neurology 1997, 48, 1475–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jia, H.; Pei, Q.; Sullivan, C.T.; Cowper Ripley, D.C.; Wu, S.S.; Vogel, W.B.; Wang, X.; Bidelspach, D.E.; Halle-Gallardo, J.L.; Bates, B.E. Regional variation in post-stroke multidisciplinary rehabilitation care among veteran residents in community nursing homes. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2017, 10, 75–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, P.J.; Furie, K.L.; Shafqat, S.; Rallis, N.; Chang, Y.; Stein, J. Functional recovery following rehabilitation after hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2003, 84, 968–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paolucci, S.; Antonucci, G.; Grasso, M.G.; Bragoni, M.; Coiro, P.; De Angelis, D.; Fusco, F.R.; Morelli, D.; Venturiero, V.; Triosi, E.; et al. Functional outcome of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients after inpatient rehabilitation: A matched comparison. Stroke 2003, 34, 2861–2865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, J.-H.; Hsieh, C.-L.; Lo, S.-K.; Hsiao, S.-F.; Huang, M.-H. Prediction of functional outcomes in stroke inpatients receiving rehabilitation. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2003, 102, 695–700. [Google Scholar]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vázquez-Guimaraens, M.; Caamaño-Ponte, J.L.; Seoane-Pillado, T.; Cudeiro, J. Factors Related to Greater Functional Recovery after Suffering a Stroke. Brain Sci. 2021, 11, 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060802
Vázquez-Guimaraens M, Caamaño-Ponte JL, Seoane-Pillado T, Cudeiro J. Factors Related to Greater Functional Recovery after Suffering a Stroke. Brain Sciences. 2021; 11(6):802. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060802
Chicago/Turabian StyleVázquez-Guimaraens, María, José L. Caamaño-Ponte, Teresa Seoane-Pillado, and Javier Cudeiro. 2021. "Factors Related to Greater Functional Recovery after Suffering a Stroke" Brain Sciences 11, no. 6: 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060802
APA StyleVázquez-Guimaraens, M., Caamaño-Ponte, J. L., Seoane-Pillado, T., & Cudeiro, J. (2021). Factors Related to Greater Functional Recovery after Suffering a Stroke. Brain Sciences, 11(6), 802. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11060802