# Effects of Different Intervention Time Points of Early Rehabilitation on Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Single-Center, Randomized Control Study

Authors: LiLi Liu; YanQin Lu; QianQian Bi; Wang Fu; XiaoYu Zhou; Jue Wang
Journal: BioMed Research International
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Objective. To investigate effects of different intervention time points of early rehabilitation on patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods. We enrolled patients diagnosed with acute ischemic stroke in our hospital’s rehabilitation ward from November 2013 to December 2015. Patients were randomly assigned to an ultraearly rehabilitation program (started within 72 hours of onset) or an early rehabilitation program (started from 72 hours to 7 days after onset). The efficacy was assessed by the NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS) International, Barthel Index, and Fugl-Meyer Assessment at one and three months after rehabilitation. Data were analyzed by variance analysis of two-factor repeated measurement. Covariance analysis was used to adjust confounding factors for the determination of statistical differences. Results. 41 patients were enrolled in the ultraearly rehabilitation group, while 45 patients were in the early rehabilitation group. There were no differences between the two groups at baseline data. Compared with the early rehabilitation group, patients in the ultraearly rehabilitation group have significantly improved NIHSS score, BMI score, and FMA score at one month and three months (P<0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors (gender, age, severity of NIHSS score, location of stroke, hypertension, diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and coronary heart disease), the significant difference still existed between the two groups at one month and three months (P<0.001). Conclusion. Our study indicated a higher efficacy in the ultraearly rehabilitation group than the early rehabilitation group. The result suggests an important practical significance in favor of the clinical treatment of stroke.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

AS the leading cause of disability, stroke imposes a heavy burden on health care system. Epidemiological data shows the prevalence of stroke in China is approximately 336.3 in 100,000 people, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYS) reaches -27.3 to -23.0/100,000 [1]. Therefore, it is imperative to reduce the disability rate following stroke. The modern rehabilitation theory considers early rehabilitation intervention is essential for cerebral ischemic stroke patients [2]. Early rehabilitation plays a critical role in improving poststroke disability and helping patients return to society [3]. Studies demonstrated patients with acute ischemic stroke entered a stable period after 24 to 48 hours of onset [4–6]. Therefore, it laid the theoretical foundation for the safety of early rehabilitation. Moreover, early rehabilitation improves the rehabilitation effect and reduced other complications [7–9]. Emerging evidence suggested early rehabilitation following stroke should be initiated as early as possible [10, 11]. American Heart Association (AHA)/American Stroke Association (ASA) recommended early rehabilitation to the patients hospitalized for stroke [12, 13]. Bernhardt et al. brought forward the concept of early rehabilitation 24 hours after the stroke [14]. AVERT trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of very early mobilization within 24 hours of stroke onset [15]. An observational study indicated the early rehabilitation, as early as 48-72 hours after stroke onset, was safe and effective in patients with ischemic stroke [16].However, the optimal intervention time point for early rehabilitation is unclear. To date, the definite theory on the time point of early activities after stroke is not elucidated. Likewise, the researches in this field are insufficient. A study by Bernhardt et al. confirmed the effectiveness and safety of ultraearly activities in either hemorrhagic stroke or ischemic stroke patients [14]. The importance of improving activity levels and effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity after stroke need to be tested further [17]. A survey investigated the attitudes of medical practitioners showing that 77% of experts recognized the early rehabilitation within 24 hours after the stroke [18–20].Therefore, we launched the study to explore the efficacy and timing of early rehabilitation in stroke patients.


## 2. Methods

### 2.1. Participants

The clinical trial registration number wasChiCTR1800019305. The Ethics Committee of Shanghai Jiangwan Hospital approved the study. All participants recruited from Shanghai City Hospital of Jiangwan between November 2013 and December 2015 signed written informed consent. The inclusion criteria in this study were as follows: (1) ischemic stroke is confirmed by cranial CT or MRI; (2) patients present with hemiplegia or hemiparesis with muscle power less than or equal to IV class; (3) patients’ vital signs and nervous system are stable; and (4) patients consent to participation in rehabilitation training. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracranial venous thrombosis patients; (2) patients suffering from a severe lung infection, liver disease, kidney disease, heart disease, or other essential organ damages; (3) unable to receive rehabilitation training for severe cognitive impairment; (4) unable to receive rehabilitation training for mental retardation or conscious disturbance; and (5) patients having neurological or musculoskeletal disorders affecting functional recovery.


### 2.2. Grouping

The patients were randomly divided into the ultraearly rehabilitation group (started within 72 hours) and early rehabilitation group (started from 72 hours to 7 days). All patients accepted rehabilitation from professional physical therapists. Rehabilitation of both groups did not start until the patients reached stable conditions. Except for intervention time points, the rehabilitation programs conducted in both groups were the same. Rehabilitation programs mainly included Bobath rehabilitation technique, brain circulation therapy apparatus, and electromyographic biofeedback technique. Bobath rehabilitation technology included the following:(1)
Good positioning: families and nursing staff counseled patients using correct posture. Patients were decubitus lateral or supine lateral and were guided to turn over every 2 hours. Patients were asked to avoid abnormal patterns of upper limb flexion, lower limb extension, and varus foot alignment.(2)
Bed position and joint training activities: hands and ten fingers cross each other on the ipsilateral hand grip, with the thumb placed on the top; with the healthy limb to limb disease, do elbow lift movement; upper limb joint activity includes side to lift, lower limb flexion, and legs and the bed support hips, namely, the bridge movement.(3)
Balance sitting and sit up training: correct hand, arm, and leg movements were shown.(4)
Sit up and standing balance training: patients with lower limb muscle strength of grade 3 and above were trained to stand. Patients began stand training using parallel bars, and the standing time gradually increased.(5)
Walk training: patients that showed an increase in the weight-bearing strength of their lower limbs started walk training. Gradually, patients were trained to step over different obstacles and up and down stairs.Brain circulation therapy apparatus and EMG biofeedback technique were used to increase cerebral blood supply, activate brain cells, and improve local muscle spasticity, tic, and paralysis to improve muscle strength and motor function. The above rehabilitation exercises were performed 20-30 min per day, 2-3 times a day, and 4-5 days a week for a total of three months.Besides rehabilitation, the other therapies followed the guidelines of treatment of acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Two weeks after treatment in the ward, the patient continued rehabilitation treatment in outpatient.


### 2.3. Clinical Assessments

The U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) assessed the severity of neurological deficit. The modified Barthel Index (MBI) was introduced to evaluate daily life activity, and the simple Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) was adopted to determine motor function. Neurologists and rehabilitation physicians in this study accepted specific training in NIHSS, MBI, and FMA assessments. We collected characteristics of patients, including gender, age, NIHSS score, location of the lesion, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, history of coronary heart disease, and history of atrial fibrillation. According to NIHSS 0-5, NIHSS 6-20, or NIHSS greater than 20, respectively, all patients were defined as mild, moderate, or severe neurologic deficit. The locations of the lesions included the right hemisphere, left hemisphere, and brain stem. All data were recorded in a unified form.


### 2.4. Randomization, Masking, and Procedures

All eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke were randomized to receive either ultraearly rehabilitation or early rehabilitation with the ratio of 1 : 1. NIHSS, BMI, and FMA were assessed at baseline, one month, and three months by the evaluators who were blind to the outcome of randomization.


### 2.5. Statistical Analysis

SPSS19.0 statistical analysis software was used for analysis. The differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed by a chi-square test andt-test. The analyses of repeated measurement data used variance analysis of two-factor repeated measurement. Covariance analysis was used to adjust the confounding factors and determine the statistical significance of dependent variables. P<0.05 was accepted as indicative of significant differences.


## 2.1. Participants

The clinical trial registration number wasChiCTR1800019305. The Ethics Committee of Shanghai Jiangwan Hospital approved the study. All participants recruited from Shanghai City Hospital of Jiangwan between November 2013 and December 2015 signed written informed consent. The inclusion criteria in this study were as follows: (1) ischemic stroke is confirmed by cranial CT or MRI; (2) patients present with hemiplegia or hemiparesis with muscle power less than or equal to IV class; (3) patients’ vital signs and nervous system are stable; and (4) patients consent to participation in rehabilitation training. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) subarachnoid hemorrhage or intracranial venous thrombosis patients; (2) patients suffering from a severe lung infection, liver disease, kidney disease, heart disease, or other essential organ damages; (3) unable to receive rehabilitation training for severe cognitive impairment; (4) unable to receive rehabilitation training for mental retardation or conscious disturbance; and (5) patients having neurological or musculoskeletal disorders affecting functional recovery.


## 2.2. Grouping

The patients were randomly divided into the ultraearly rehabilitation group (started within 72 hours) and early rehabilitation group (started from 72 hours to 7 days). All patients accepted rehabilitation from professional physical therapists. Rehabilitation of both groups did not start until the patients reached stable conditions. Except for intervention time points, the rehabilitation programs conducted in both groups were the same. Rehabilitation programs mainly included Bobath rehabilitation technique, brain circulation therapy apparatus, and electromyographic biofeedback technique. Bobath rehabilitation technology included the following:(1)
Good positioning: families and nursing staff counseled patients using correct posture. Patients were decubitus lateral or supine lateral and were guided to turn over every 2 hours. Patients were asked to avoid abnormal patterns of upper limb flexion, lower limb extension, and varus foot alignment.(2)
Bed position and joint training activities: hands and ten fingers cross each other on the ipsilateral hand grip, with the thumb placed on the top; with the healthy limb to limb disease, do elbow lift movement; upper limb joint activity includes side to lift, lower limb flexion, and legs and the bed support hips, namely, the bridge movement.(3)
Balance sitting and sit up training: correct hand, arm, and leg movements were shown.(4)
Sit up and standing balance training: patients with lower limb muscle strength of grade 3 and above were trained to stand. Patients began stand training using parallel bars, and the standing time gradually increased.(5)
Walk training: patients that showed an increase in the weight-bearing strength of their lower limbs started walk training. Gradually, patients were trained to step over different obstacles and up and down stairs.Brain circulation therapy apparatus and EMG biofeedback technique were used to increase cerebral blood supply, activate brain cells, and improve local muscle spasticity, tic, and paralysis to improve muscle strength and motor function. The above rehabilitation exercises were performed 20-30 min per day, 2-3 times a day, and 4-5 days a week for a total of three months.Besides rehabilitation, the other therapies followed the guidelines of treatment of acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Two weeks after treatment in the ward, the patient continued rehabilitation treatment in outpatient.


## 2.3. Clinical Assessments

The U.S. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) assessed the severity of neurological deficit. The modified Barthel Index (MBI) was introduced to evaluate daily life activity, and the simple Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA) was adopted to determine motor function. Neurologists and rehabilitation physicians in this study accepted specific training in NIHSS, MBI, and FMA assessments. We collected characteristics of patients, including gender, age, NIHSS score, location of the lesion, history of hypertension, history of diabetes, history of coronary heart disease, and history of atrial fibrillation. According to NIHSS 0-5, NIHSS 6-20, or NIHSS greater than 20, respectively, all patients were defined as mild, moderate, or severe neurologic deficit. The locations of the lesions included the right hemisphere, left hemisphere, and brain stem. All data were recorded in a unified form.


## 2.4. Randomization, Masking, and Procedures

All eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke were randomized to receive either ultraearly rehabilitation or early rehabilitation with the ratio of 1 : 1. NIHSS, BMI, and FMA were assessed at baseline, one month, and three months by the evaluators who were blind to the outcome of randomization.


## 2.5. Statistical Analysis

SPSS19.0 statistical analysis software was used for analysis. The differences in baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed by a chi-square test andt-test. The analyses of repeated measurement data used variance analysis of two-factor repeated measurement. Covariance analysis was used to adjust the confounding factors and determine the statistical significance of dependent variables. P<0.05 was accepted as indicative of significant differences.


## 3. Results

90 out of 96 eligible participants were recruited and assigned randomly to one of two groups. Among the 96 participants, 88 completed the 1-month trial, and 86 patients completed the 3-month trial. There were two patient dropouts in the ultraearly rehabilitation group at the beginning of rehabilitation. Two cases were lost at follow-up in the ultraearly rehabilitation group at three months (Figure1).Figure 1
Flowchart of the study population.At baseline, there were no significant differences in the severity of disability, age, gender, locations of lesions, and medicine between the two groups (Table1). Neurologic function, daily living activities, and motor function improved after rehabilitation in both groups. As shown in Tables 2–4, NIHSS scores were lower in the ultraearly rehabilitation group than in the early rehabilitation group at one month and three months [intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison: F=253.433 (P<0.001)], while MBI scores and FMA were higher in the ultraearly rehabilitation group than in the early rehabilitation group [intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison for MBI: F=758.093 (P<0.001); intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison for FMA: F=842.880 (P<0.001)]. Covariance analysis showed the differences remained statistically significant after adjusting for confusing factors at 1-month and 3-month (Tables 5–7). Moreover, gender and the severity of neurology deficit at onset were independently correlated to NIHSS, MBI, and FMA at one month and three months.Table 1
Basic characteristics of the ultraearly rehabilitation group and the early rehabilitation group with acute ischemic stroke.
VariablesUltraearly group (n=41)Early group (n=45)P valueGender (m/f)25/1629/160.740Age at admission (mean±SD)76.5±6.3671.5±14.80.961Location of strokeThe left hemisphere2025The right hemisphere18180.752Brain stem32Severity of NIHSS scoreLight96Moderate30380.487Severe21Table 2
Comparison of neurological deficits (NIHSS score) between ultraearly rehabilitation group and the early rehabilitation groupx¯+¯s.
GroupCasesNIHSSAt admissionTreatment after 1 monthTreatment after 3 monthsUltraearly group4110.02±5.885.02±3.373.10±2.26Early group458.40±4.216.71±3.834.98±3.31Intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison:F=253.433 (P<0.001). Intergroup comparison: F=35.710 (P<0.001).Table 3
Comparison of Barthel Index (MBI) between the ultraearly rehabilitation group and the early rehabilitation groupx¯+¯s.
GroupCasesMBIAt admissionTreatment after 1 monthTreatment after 3 monthsUltraearly group4147.32±10.0762.31±10.3773.90±12.48Early group4548.10±9.9055.78±8.0562.24±8.77Intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison:F=758.093 (P<0.001). Intergroup comparison: F=86.333 (P<0.001).Table 4
Comparison of motor function (FMA) between the ultraearly rehabilitation group and the early rehabilitation groupx¯+¯s.
GroupCasesFMAAt admissionTreatment after 1 monthTreatment after 3 monthsUltraearly group4147.73±11.0862.80±11.2678.12±13.19Early group4550.69±7.3457.98±7.4663.91±8.74Intragroup (repeated interaction) comparison:F=842.880 (P<0.001). Intergroup comparison: F=130.962 (P<0.001).Table 5
ANCOVA of the factors that affected change of NIHSS score in one month and three months following rehabilitation.
ΔNIHSSFactorsDFMSF valueP value1 monthGroup1265.67085.199.000Gender115.0294.820.031Age11.504.482.489Severity of NIHSS score1117.40037.650.000Location of stroke1.062.020.888Hypertension1.329.105.746Diabetes12.498.801.374Coronary heart disease15.9731.915.170Atrial fibrillation1.744.239.6273 monthsGroup1307.88358.531.000Gender128.6355.444.022Age13.033.577.450Severity of NIHSS score1263.92550.174.000Location of stroke12.371.451.504Hypertension1.037.007.934Diabetes110.7332.040.157Coronary heart disease18.3961.596.210Atrial fibrillation1.016.003.956ΔNIHSS: change of NIHSS score; DF: degree of freedom; MS: mean square. Significance: P<0.05.Table 6
ANCOVA of the factors that affected change of MBI score in one month and three months following rehabilitation.
Δ MBIFactorsDFMSF valueP value1 monthGroup11092.65927.541.000Gender12.455.062.804Age11.144.029.866Severity of NIHSS score13.908.099.754Location of stroke120.868.526.471Hypertension14.387.111.740Diabetes143.8011.104.297Coronary heart disease113.906.351.556Atrial fibrillation117.214.434.5123 monthsGroup13184.41959.851.000Gender1.094.002.967Age11.135.021.884Severity of NIHSS score152.374.984.324Location of stroke12.293.043.836Hypertension128.252.531.468Diabetes141.375.778.381Coronary heart disease196.9281.822.181Atrial fibrillation15.585.105.747ΔMBI: change of NIHSS score; DF: degree of freedom; MS: mean square. Significance: P<0.05.Table 7
ANCOVA of the factors that affected change of FMA score in one month and three months following rehabilitation.
ΔFMAFactorsDFMSF valueP value1 monthGroup11252.803103.570.000Gender1.119.010.921Age116.2331.342.250Severity of NIHSS score17.172.593.444Location of stroke111.948.988.323Hypertension13.915.324.571Diabetes114.1561.170.283Coronary heart disease118.6621.543.218Atrial fibrillation1.654.054.8173 monthsGroup16182.668209.557.000Gender110.327.350.556Age115.514.526.471Severity of NIHSS score114.890.505.480Location of stroke12.609.088.767Hypertension119.168.650.423Diabetes144.1211.495.225Coronary heart disease123.142.784.379Atrial fibrillation12.306.078.781ΔNIHSS: change of FMA score; DF: degree of freedom; MS: mean square. Significance: P<0.05.


## 4. Discussion

Our results indicated the efficacy of ultraearly patient rehabilitation within 72 hours outmatched that of early restoration. Previous studies supported our conclusions [2]. It is consistent with Bernhardt, et al.’s study which showed the validity and safety of ultraearly events, and results confirmed the effectiveness and safety of ultraearly events [14].The theory of neural plasticity and functional reorganization accounts for our result [21–23]. In these two theoretical studies, early rehabilitation training facilitates neuroplasticity and functional reorganization. Moreover, changes in the brain tissue structure provide the foundation for neuroplasticity and functional recovery after stroke. In animal models, ischemia induces sprouting of new dendrites and axons, primarily in the perilesional cortex and in regions of molecular plasticity remote from the lesion [24]. Growth factor signals promoting synaptogenesis can be detected as early as three days poststroke and reaches the highest between 7 and 14 days [25, 26]. Compared with the recovery stage, acute stroke leads to distinct remote inhibitory effects, inflammatory reactions and inflammatory factors (such as hs-CRP, IL-1, and IL-6). With brain cell damaging, remote inhibitory effects may be independently associated with immediate neurological deficits. In the acute phase of stroke, the inflammatory response on brain cells is neurotoxic, which blocks nerve remodeling and inhibits nerve conduction. Therefore, inhibition of neuron recovery is more in the acute phase than in the recovery phase. Ultraearly intervention treatment reduces remote inhibitory effects and inflammatory response, thereby accelerating the rehabilitation and improving the rehabilitation effect.In addition, early rehabilitation improves the early survival of brain cells by increasing cerebral blood flow (CBF) and reducing the penumbra around the lesion. Increasing CBF contributes to reducing ischemic necrosis of neurons in the penumbra zone. Sensory impulse is repeatedly introduced into the central nervous system, which plays an essential role in axon sprouting of neurons, transmission of latent pathways, and synapses. Therefore, ultraearly rehabilitation increases the CBF in the penumbra area and revitalizes a part of the neuron [27]. A study using a rat model of cerebral infarction indicated physical activities within 14 days of onset reduced dendritic branching and prevented the aggravation of nerve conduction [24]. Early rehabilitation intervention promotes dendritic sprouting, stimulates synaptic transmission, and increases CBF. Schallert et al. [28] proposed that early stroke rehabilitation intervention results in better recovery of neurological function after stroke. Natural recovery leads to further residual dysfunction, misuse gives rise to residual limb function, and subsequential deterioration of nerve function contributes to wasting. Therefore, earlier rehabilitation training prevents injured brain cells, misuse, and wasting of limbs and promotes the reconstruction of normal motion mode.The limitations of our study were that it is a single-center study and the sample was relatively small. Therefore, the introduction of bias was possible. However, strict randomized design in our study partly reduced the possibility of bias.


## 5. Conclusion

Our study showed the efficacy of ultraearly rehabilitation in neurological function, activities of daily living, and motor function in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Further large sample trial is clearly warranted.



---

*Source: 1940549-2021-08-29.xml*