Caroline Winters1,2, Erwin E H van Wegen1,2, Andreas Daffertshofer3, Gert Kwakkel1,2,4,5. 1. 1 Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, VU University Medical Center, MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. 2 Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. 3 Department of Human Movement Sciences, Faculty of Behaviour and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, MOVE Research Institute Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. 4 Amsterdam Rehabilitation Research Center, Reade, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 5. 5 Department of Physical Therapy and Human Movement Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Proportional recovery of upper-extremity motor function and aphasia after stroke may suggest common mechanisms for spontaneous neurobiological recovery. This study aimed to investigate if the proportional recovery rule also applies to visuospatial neglect (VSN) in right-hemispheric first-ever ischemic stroke patients and explored the possible common underlying mechanisms. METHODS: Patients with upper-limb paresis and VSN were included. Recovery defined as the change in Letter Cancellation Test (LCT) score at ~8 days and 6 months poststroke. Potential recovery defined as LCTmax-LCTinitial = 20 - LCTinitial. Hierarchical clustering separated fitters and nonfitters of the prediction rule. A cutoff value on LCTmax-LCTinitial was determined. The change in LCT and Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity was expressed as a percentage of the total possible score to investigate the communality of proportional recovery. RESULTS: Out of 90 patients, 80 displayed proportional recovery of VSN (ie, "fitters," 0.97; 95% CI = 0.82-1.12). All patients who did not follow the prediction rule for VSN (ie, "nonfitters") had ≥15 missing O's at baseline and failed to show proportional recovery of the upper limb. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the proportional recovery rule also applies to patients with VSN poststroke. Patients who fail to show proportional recovery of VSN are the same patients who fail to show proportional recovery of the upper limb. These findings support the idea of common intrahemispheric mechanisms underlying spontaneous neurobiological recovery in the first months poststroke. Future studies should investigate the prognostic clinical and neurobiological markers of these subgroups.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Proportional recovery of upper-extremity motor function and aphasia after stroke may suggest common mechanisms for spontaneous neurobiological recovery. This study aimed to investigate if the proportional recovery rule also applies to visuospatial neglect (VSN) in right-hemispheric first-ever ischemic strokepatients and explored the possible common underlying mechanisms. METHODS:Patients with upper-limb paresis and VSN were included. Recovery defined as the change in Letter Cancellation Test (LCT) score at ~8 days and 6 months poststroke. Potential recovery defined as LCTmax-LCTinitial = 20 - LCTinitial. Hierarchical clustering separated fitters and nonfitters of the prediction rule. A cutoff value on LCTmax-LCTinitial was determined. The change in LCT and Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity was expressed as a percentage of the total possible score to investigate the communality of proportional recovery. RESULTS: Out of 90 patients, 80 displayed proportional recovery of VSN (ie, "fitters," 0.97; 95% CI = 0.82-1.12). All patients who did not follow the prediction rule for VSN (ie, "nonfitters") had ≥15 missing O's at baseline and failed to show proportional recovery of the upper limb. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the proportional recovery rule also applies to patients with VSN poststroke. Patients who fail to show proportional recovery of VSN are the same patients who fail to show proportional recovery of the upper limb. These findings support the idea of common intrahemispheric mechanisms underlying spontaneous neurobiological recovery in the first months poststroke. Future studies should investigate the prognostic clinical and neurobiological markers of these subgroups.
Authors: Lara A Boyd; Kathryn S Hayward; Nick S Ward; Cathy M Stinear; Charlotte Rosso; Rebecca J Fisher; Alexandre R Carter; Alex P Leff; David A Copland; Leeanne M Carey; Leonardo G Cohen; D Michele Basso; Jane M Maguire; Steven C Cramer Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Martijn P Vlaar; Teodoro Solis-Escalante; Julius P A Dewald; Erwin E H van Wegen; Alfred C Schouten; Gert Kwakkel; Frans C T van der Helm Journal: J Neuroeng Rehabil Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 4.262
Authors: Adrian G Guggisberg; Pierre Nicolo; Leonardo G Cohen; Armin Schnider; Ethan R Buch Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2017-11-12 Impact factor: 3.919
Authors: Anjali Nagpal; Fong Chan Choy; Stuart Howell; Susan Hillier; Fiona Chan; Monica A Hamilton-Bruce; Simon A Koblar Journal: Stem Cell Res Ther Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 6.832
Authors: Sarah B Zandvliet; Gert Kwakkel; Rinske H M Nijland; Erwin E H van Wegen; Carel G M Meskers Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 3.919