Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke—Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial

  • Susan M. Hunter
  • , Heidi Johansen-Berg
  • , Nick Ward
  • , Niamh C. Kennedy
  • , Elizabeth Chandler
  • , Christopher John Weir
  • , John Rothwell
  • , Alan M. Wing
  • , Michael J. Grey
  • , Garry Barton
  • , Nick Malachy Leavey
  • , Claire Havis
  • , Roger N. Lemon
  • , Jane Burridge
  • , Amy Dymond
  • , Valerie M. Pomeroy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

129 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Variation in physiological deficits underlying upper limb paresis after stroke could influence how people recover and to which physical therapy they best respond.
Objectives: To determine whether functional strength training (FST) improves upper limb recovery more than movement performance therapy (MPT). To identify: (a) neural correlates of response and (b) whether pre-intervention neural characteristics predict response.
Design: Explanatory investigations within a randomised, controlled, observer-blind, and multicentre trial. Randomisation was computer-generated and concealed by an independent facility until baseline measures were completed. Primary time point was outcome, after the 6-week intervention phase. Follow-up was at 6 months after stroke.
Participants: With some voluntary muscle contraction in the paretic upper limb, not full dexterity, when recruited up to 60 days after an anterior cerebral circulation territory stroke.
Interventions: Conventional physical therapy (CPT) plus either MPT or FST for up to 90 min-a-day, 5 days-a-week for 6 weeks. FST was “hands-off” progressive resistive exercise cemented into functional task training. MPT was “hands-on” sensory/facilitation techniques for smooth and accurate movement.
Outcomes: The primary efficacy measure was the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT). Neural measures: fractional anisotropy (FA) corpus callosum midline; asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA; and resting motor threshold (RMT) of motor-evoked potentials.
Analysis: Covariance models tested ARAT change from baseline. At outcome: correlation coefficients assessed relationship between change in ARAT and neural measures; an interaction term assessed whether baseline neural characteristics predicted response.
Results: 288 Participants had: mean age of 72.2 (SD 12.5) years and mean ARAT 25.5 (18.2). For 240 participants with ARAT at baseline and outcome the mean change was 9.70 (11.72) for FST + CPT and 7.90 (9.18) for MPT + CPT, which did not differ statistically (p = 0.298). Correlations between ARAT change scores and baseline neural values were between 0.199, p = 0.320 for MPT + CPT RMT (n = 27) and −0.147, p = 0.385 for asymmetry of corticospinal tracts FA (n = 37). Interaction effects between neural values and ARAT change between baseline and outcome were not statistically significant.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference in upper limb improvement between FST and MPT. Baseline neural measures did not correlate with upper limb recovery or predict therapy response.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCT 19090862, http://www.controlled-trials.com
Original languageEnglish
Article number733
Pages (from-to)1-24
Number of pages24
JournalFrontiers in Neurology
Volume8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished (in print/issue) - 25 Jan 2018

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • stroke
  • rehabilitation
  • physical therapy
  • transcranial magnetic stimulation
  • magnetic resonance
  • imaging
  • upper limb
  • prediction

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Functional Strength Training and Movement Performance Therapy for Upper Limb Recovery Early Poststroke—Efficacy, Neural Correlates, Predictive Markers, and Cost-Effectiveness: FAST-INdiCATE Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this