medigraphic.com
ISSN 1561-3011 (Electronic)

2020, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Rev Cubana Invest Bioméd 2020; 39 (2)

Comprehensive intervention in stroke

Balmaseda SR, Gracia MC, García ML, Manzanero AL, Álvarez GMÁ

Language: Spanish
References: 35
Page: 1-14
PDF size: 221.36 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: debate is currently underway about what types of stroke recovery interventions are more beneficial for patients.
Objective: evaluate the effect of a six-month comprehensive intervention on the functional recovery of stroke patients.
Methods: the study sample was 42 stroke patients: an experimental group (N = 22), mean age 52.68 years (SD = 14.39), who received a comprehensive intensive multidisciplinary intervention, and a control group (N = 20), mean age 56.20 years (SD = 14.82), who did not receive this type of intervention. The following stroke severity indices were applied: Glasgow Coma Scale, Canadian Scale, intensive care unit stay, uncal latching signs, endocranial hypertension signs, hematoma volume / ischemic area, midline displacement, need for surgery and total hospital stay time. These severity indices were similar in the two groups. Degree of functionality was gauged with the scales Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure. This test was applied at the start of the intervention and 6 months later.
Results: both groups had a positive evolution in all the areas of the scale. The comprehensive intervention and a shorter total hospital stay were associated to better functional recovery from stroke.
Conclusions: the need is suggested to implement comprehensive rehabilitation strategies in stroke patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Moore SA, Hallsworth K, Jakovljevic DG, Andrew M, Blamire AM, He J, et al. Effects of Community Exercise Therapy on Metabolic, Brain, Physical, and Cognitive Function Following Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 2015;29(7):623-35.

  2. Obembe AO, Eng JJ. Rehabilitation interventions for improving social participation after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 2016;30(4):384-92.

  3. Grefkes C, Fink GR. Connectivity-based approaches in stroke and recovery of function. The Lancet Neurology 2014;13(2):206-16.

  4. Koch P, Schulz R, Hummel FC. Structural connectivity analyses in motor recovery research after stroke. Annals of clinical and translational neurology 2016;3(3):233-44.

  5. Lawrence M, Pringle J, Kerr S, Booth J, Govan L, Roberts NJ. Multimodal secondary prevention behavioral interventions for TIA and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10(3):e0120902.

  6. McDonald MW, Hayward KS, Rosbergen I, Jeffers MS, Corbett D. Is Environmental Enrichment Ready for Clinical Application in Human Post-Stroke Rehabilitation? Front Behav Neurosci 2018;12:135.

  7. Fernández-Concepción O, Ramírez-Pérez E, Álvarez MA, Buergo-Zuáznabar MA. Validation of the stroke-specific quality of life scale (ECVI-38)]. Rev Neurol 2008;46(3):147-52.

  8. Balmaseda R, Domínguez-Morales MR, León-Carrión J, García-Bernal I. Recuperación funcional de pacientes cerebrovasculares después de tratamiento intensivo. Datos preliminares. Revista Española de Neuropsicología 2000;2(3):44-61.

  9. Domínguez-Morales MR. El modelo de Rehabilitación CRECER para el daño cerebral adquirido. Minusval 2002;2 (num especial):62-70.

  10. Domínguez-Morales MR, Rodríguez-Duarte R, Machuca-Murga F, Madrazo-Lazcano M. Rehabilitación neuropsicológica, multidisciplinar, integral y holística del daño cerebral adquirido. Revista de psicología general y aplicada: Revista de la Federación Española de Asociaciones de Psicología 2002;55(1):123-38.

  11. Hamilton BB, Granger CV, Sherwin FS, Zielezny M, Tashman JS. A Uniform National Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer M, ed. Rehabilitation outcomes: analysis and measurements. Baltimore: Brooks; 1987: 137-47.

  12. Willer B, Rosenthal M, Kreutzer J, Gordon W, Rempel R. Assessment of community integration following rehabilitation for traumatic brain injury. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1993;8(2):75-87.

  13. Hall KM, Hamilton B, Gordon WA, Zasler ND. Charasteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: disability rating scale, functional independence measure and functional assessment measure. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1993;8(2):60-74.

  14. Bravo G, Richards CL, Corriveau H, Trottier L. Converting Functional Autonomy Measurement System Scores of Patients Post-Stroke to FIM Scores. Physiotherapy Canada 2018;70(4):349-55.

  15. Nayar M, Vanderstay R, Siegert RJ, Turner-Stokes L. The UK functional assessment measure (UK FIM+ FAM): psychometric evaluation in patients undergoing specialist rehabilitation following a stroke from the national UK clinical dataset. PLoS One 2016;11(1):e0147288.

  16. Murphy TH, Corbett D. Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10:861-72.

  17. Quattromani MJ, Pruvost M, Guerreiro C, Blacklund F, Englund E, Aspberg A, et al. Extracellular Matrix Modulation is Driven by Experience-Dependent Plasticity During Stroke Recovery. Mol Neurobiol 2018;55(3):2196- 213.

  18. Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Annals of neurology 2008;63(3):272-87.

  19. Bernhardt J, Hayward KS, Kwakkel G, Ward NS, Wolf SL, Borschmann K, et al. Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable task force. International Journal of Stroke 2017;12(5):444-50.

  20. Zhao LR, Willing A. Enhancing endogenous capacity to repair a strpke-damage brain: An evolving field for stroke research. Prog Neurobiol 2018;163-164:5-26.

  21. Kempermann G. Environmental enrichment, new neurons and the neurobiology of individuality. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2019;20(4):235-45.

  22. Rosenzweig M. Modification of Brain Circuits through Experience. In: F.Bermúdez-Rattoni, editor. Neural Plasticity and Memory: From Genes to Brain Imaging. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press/Taylor & Francis; 2007.

  23. Cassidy JM, Cramer SC. Spontaneous and therapeutic-induced mechanisms of functional recovery after stroke. Translational stroke research 2017;8(1):33-46.

  24. Hara Y. Brain plasticity and rehabilitation in stroke patients. Journal of Nippon Medical School 2015;82(1):4-13.

  25. Huster RJ, Mokom ZN, Enriquez-Geppert S, Herrman CS. Brain-computer interfaces for EEG neurofeedback: Peculiarities and solutions. Int. J. Psychophysiol 2013;91(1):36-45. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.08.011

  26. Smith MC, Stinear CM. Plasticity and motor recovery after stroke: Implications for physiotherapy. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy 2016;44(3).

  27. Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2017;20,11.

  28. Guger C, Millán JDR, Mattia D, Ushiba J, Soekadar SR, Prabhakaran V, et al. Brain-computer interfaces for stroke rehabilitation: summary of the 2016 BCI Meeting in Asilomar. Brain- Computer Interfaces 2018;5(2-3):41-57.

  29. Zeiler SR, Krakauer JW. The interaction between training and plasticity in the post-stroke brain. Current opinion in neurology 2013;26(6):609.

  30. Karthikeyan S, Jeffers MS, Carter A, Corbett D. Characterizing spontaneous motor recovery following cortical and subcortical stroke in the rat. Neurorehabilitation and neural repair 2019;33(1):27-37.

  31. Coleman ER, Moudgal R, Lang K, Hyacinth HI, Awosika OO, Kissela BM, et al. Early Rehabilitation After Stroke: a Narrative Review. Curr Atheroscler Rep 2017;19(12):59.

  32. Kessel JB, Zimmerman M. Reporting errors in studies of the diagnostic performance of self-administered questionnaires: extent of the problem, recommendations for standardized presentation of results, and implications for the peer review process. Psychological Assessment 1993;5(4):395.

  33. Turner-Stokes L, Turner-Stokes T. The use of standardized outcome measures in rehabilitation centres in the UK. Clinical Rehabilitation 1997;11(4):306-13.

  34. Alcott D, Dixon K, Swann R. The reliability of the items of the Functional Assessment Meassure (FAM): differences in abstractness between FAM items. Disability and Rehabilitation 1997;19(9):355-8.

  35. Álvarez MA. Datos blandos para ciencias duras. España: EOS; 2016.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com