The worldwide pandemic of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Co2) has emerged as one of the biggest public health crises in a century. Health systems in Canada face immense challenges, both to cope with the number of affected patients and the constraints imposed by containment measures such as physical distancing, quarantine, and personal protection. Stroke care across the globe and within Canada is rapidly changing to meet these challenges (see Appendix 1 in Supplementary material). This document provides guidance on implementing evidencebased stroke care during the COVID-19 pandemic, based on expert opinion from the Canadian Stroke Best Practices Advisory Council. Despite incomplete and rapidly evolving evidence, we offer early guidance without formal recommendations and evidence grades because urgent changes are necessary. This guidance is based on expert opinion and early shared experiences with reorganizing stroke systems at the time of writing (April 13, 2020). This document is guided by two main principles. First, stroke remains a medical emergency and should be treated as such. Second, stroke care is highly effective. Stroke best practice recommendations remain as evidence-based and relevant as ever, even though logistics and workflows need to change to accommodate the pandemic. Evidence-based stroke care reduces mortality, length of stay, improves functional outcomes, and prevents recurrence, contributing to relief of the health system. It should not be intentionally stopped or suspended, and this is universally agreed upon by stroke leaders (Appendix 1 in Supplementary material). Across the globe, stroke centers are reporting decreased number of individuals with stroke symptoms presenting to emergency departments for care, especially those with TIA or milder symptoms. The causes behind this are not clear at this time. There is anecdotal evidence that patterns of patient engagement with health care services may be changing during the pandemic. Such decreases may raise new concerns, as individuals reluctant to seek medical care may be at a higher risk of a recurrent event with more severe and lasting physical, cognitive, and emotional impacts without timely assessment and treatment.

/pdf/canadian-stroke-best-practice-guidance-during-the-covid-19-4541tvh23l.pdf

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Guidance During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Robotic rehabilitation after stroke provides the potential to increase and carefully control dosage of therapy. Only a small number of studies, however, have examined robotic therapy in the first few weeks post-stroke. In this study we designed robotic upper extremity therapy tasks for the bilateral Kinarm Exoskeleton Lab and piloted them in individuals with subacute stroke. Pilot testing was focused mainly on the feasibility of implementing these new tasks, although we recorded a number of standardized outcome measures before and after training. Our team developed 9 robotic therapy tasks to incorporate feedback, intensity, challenge, and subject engagement as well as addressing both unimanual and bimanual arm activities. Subacute stroke participants were assigned to a robotic therapy (N = 9) or control group (N = 10) in a matched-group manner. The robotic therapy group completed 1-h of robotic therapy per day for 10 days in addition to standard therapy. The control group participated only in standard of care therapy. Clinical and robotic assessments were completed prior to and following the intervention. Clinical assessments included the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Upper Extremity (FMA UE), Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) and Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Robotic assessments of upper limb sensorimotor function included a Visually Guided Reaching task and an Arm Position Matching task, among others. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare initial and final robotic therapy scores as well as pre- and post-clinical and robotic assessments. Participants with subacute stroke (39.8 days post-stroke) completed the pilot study. Minimal adverse events occurred during the intervention and adding 1 h of robotic therapy was feasible. Clinical and robotic scores did not significantly differ between groups at baseline. Scores on the FMA UE, ARAT, FIM, and Visually Guided Reaching improved significantly in the robotic therapy group following completion of the robotic intervention. However, only FIM and Arm Position Match improved over the same time in the control group. The Kinarm therapy tasks have the potential to improve outcomes in subacute stroke. Future studies are necessary to quantify the benefits of this robot-based therapy in a larger cohort. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04201613, Registered 17 December 2019—Retrospectively Registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04201613
 .

Robot enhanced stroke therapy optimizes rehabilitation (RESTORE): a pilot study

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid shift to telehealth delivered physical therapy services. Common impairments after stroke create unique challenges when providing rehabilitation via telehealth, particularly when it involves activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions, including walking training. Our scoping review maps the evidence regarding safety, efficacy and feasibility of remotely supervised telehealth interventions involving activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions for people after stroke. 

METHODS: Searches of relevant databases for primary research studies were conducted using keywords relating to exercise and telehealth. Studies of stroke survivors undertaking interventions involving activities in weightbearing or standing positions, supervised in real-time via telehealth were included. Two reviewers independently appraised all studies. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another and results synthesized narratively. 

RESULTS: Seven studies (two randomized trials, one mixed-methods and four pre-post studies) were included, involving 179 participants. Some studies included stroke survivors with cognitive impairment and two (29%) studies only included participants who walked independently. Adherence (reported in three studies) and satisfaction (reported in four studies) was good, and no serious adverse events (data from four studies) related to interventions were reported. Strategies to overcome technological barriers were used to optimize intervention safety and feasibility, along with physiological monitoring, caregiver assistance and in-person exercise prescription. However, there is limited high quality evidence of efficacy. 

CONCLUSIONS: We identified strategies used in research to date which can support current practice. However, urgent research is needed to ensure that stroke survivors are receiving evidence-based, effective services. IMPACT: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid shift to telerehabilitation services for people with stroke, but there is little evidence to guide best practice. Our review provides practical guidance and strategies to overcome barriers, and optimize safety and adherence for telehealth interventions involving activities in weightbearing or standing positions.

/pdf/look-before-you-leap-interventions-supervised-via-telehealth-4zuvga95ug.pdf

Look Before You Leap: Interventions Supervised via Telehealth Involving Activities in Weight-Bearing or Standing Positions for People After Stroke-A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND Stroke affects millions of people every year and is a leading cause of disability, resulting in significant financial cost and reduction in quality of life. Rehabilitation after stroke aims to reduce disability by facilitating recovery of impairment, activity, or participation. One aspect of stroke rehabilitation that may affect outcomes is the amount of time spent in rehabilitation, including minutes provided, frequency (i.e. days per week of rehabilitation), and duration (i.e. time period over which rehabilitation is provided). Effect of time spent in rehabilitation after stroke has been explored extensively in the literature, but findings are inconsistent. Previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses have included studies that differ not only in the amount provided, but also type of rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES To assess the effect of 1. more time spent in the same type of rehabilitation on activity measures in people with stroke; 2. difference in total rehabilitation time (in minutes) on recovery of activity in people with stroke; and 3. rehabilitation schedule on activity in terms of: a. average time (minutes) per week undergoing rehabilitation, b. frequency (number of sessions per week) of rehabilitation, and c. total duration of rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and five trials registers to June 2021. We searched reference lists of identified studies, contacted key authors, and undertook reference searching using Web of Science Cited Reference Search. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with stroke that compared different amounts of time spent, greater than zero, in rehabilitation (any non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention aimed to improve activity after stroke). Studies varied only in the amount of time in rehabilitation between experimental and control conditions. Primary outcome was activities of daily living (ADLs); secondary outcomes were activity measures of upper and lower limbs, motor impairment measures of upper and lower limbs, and serious adverse events (SAE)/death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For continuous outcomes using different scales, we calculated pooled standardised mean difference (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS The quantitative synthesis of this review comprised 21 parallel RCTs, involving analysed data from 1412 participants.  Time in rehabilitation varied between studies. Minutes provided per week were 90 to 1288. Days per week of rehabilitation were three to seven. Duration of rehabilitation was two weeks to six months. Thirteen studies provided upper limb rehabilitation, five general rehabilitation, two mobilisation training, and one lower limb training. Sixteen studies examined participants in the first six months following stroke; the remaining five included participants more than six months poststroke. Comparison of stroke severity or level of impairment was limited due to variations in measurement. The risk of bias assessment suggests there were issues with the methodological quality of the included studies. There were 76 outcome-level risk of bias assessments: 15 low risk, 37 some concerns, and 24 high risk. When comparing groups that spent more time versus less time in rehabilitation immediately after intervention, we found no difference in rehabilitation for ADL outcomes (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; P = 0.09; I2 = 7%; 14 studies, 864 participants; very low-certainty evidence), activity measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29; P = 0.36; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and activity measures of the lower limb (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.08; I2 = 48%; 5 studies, 425 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found an effect in favour of more time in rehabilitation for motor impairment measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.01; I2 = 10%; 9 studies, 287 participants; low-certainty evidence) and of the lower limb (SMD 0.71, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; P = 0.01; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no intervention-related SAEs. More time in rehabilitation did not affect the risk of SAEs/death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.85; P = 0.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 379 participants; low-certainty evidence), but few studies measured these outcomes. Predefined subgroup analyses comparing studies with a larger difference of total time spent in rehabilitation between intervention groups to studies with a smaller difference found greater improvements for studies with a larger difference. This was statistically significant for ADL outcomes (P = 0.02) and activity measures of the upper limb (P = 0.04), but not for activity measures of the lower limb (P = 0.41) or motor impairment measures of the upper limb (P = 0.06). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS An increase in time spent in the same type of rehabilitation after stroke results in little to no difference in meaningful activities such as activities of daily living and activities of the upper and lower limb but a small benefit in measures of motor impairment (low- to very low-certainty evidence for all findings). If the increase in time spent in rehabilitation exceeds a threshold, this may lead to improved outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a minimum beneficial daily amount in clinical practice. The findings of this study are limited by a lack of studies with a significant contrast in amount of additional rehabilitation provided between control and intervention groups. Large, well-designed, high-quality RCTs that measure time spent in all rehabilitation activities (not just interventional) and provide a large contrast (minimum of 1000 minutes) in amount of rehabilitation between groups would provide further evidence for effect of time spent in rehabilitation.

The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke

Stroke is one of the main causes of disability. Telerehabilitation could face the growing demand and a good strategy for post-stroke rehabilitation. The aim of this study is to examine the possible effects of therapeutic exercises performed by an App on trunk control, balance, and gait in stroke survivors. A preliminary 12-week randomized controlled trial was developed. Thirty chronic stroke survivors were randomly allocated into two groups. Both groups performed conventional physiotherapy, in addition to, the experimental group (EG) had access to a telerehabilitation App to guide home-based core-stability exercises (CSE). Trunk performance was measured with the Spanish-Trunk Impairment Scale (S-TIS 2.0) and Spanish-Function in Sitting Test. Balance and gait were measured with Spanish-Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke patient, Berg Balance Scale and an accelerometer system. In EG was observed an improvement of 2.76 points in S-TIS 2.0 (p = 0.001). Small differences were observed in balance and gait. Adherence to the use of the App was low. CSE guided by a telerehabilitation App, combined with conventional physiotherapy, seem to improve trunk function and sitting balance in chronic post-stroke. Active participation in the rehabilitation process should be increased among stroke survivors. Further confirmatory studies are necessary with a large sample size.

/pdf/influence-of-core-stability-exercises-guided-by-a-3hm5fgas.pdf

Influence of Core-Stability Exercises Guided by a Telerehabilitation App on Trunk Performance, Balance and Gait Performance in Chronic Stroke Survivors: A Preliminary Randomized Controlled Trial

The sixth update of the Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Reintegration following Stroke. Part one: Rehabilitation and Recovery Following Stroke is a comprehensive set of evidence-based guidelines addressing issues surrounding impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions following stroke. Rehabilitation is a critical component of recovery, essential for helping patients to regain lost skills, relearn tasks, and regain independence. Following a stroke, many people typically require rehabilitation for persisting deficits related to hemiparesis, upper-limb dysfunction, pain, impaired balance, swallowing, and vision, neglect, and limitations with mobility, activities of daily living, and communication. This module addresses interventions related to these issues as well as the structure in which they are provided, since rehabilitation can be provided on an inpatient, outpatient, or community basis. These guidelines also recognize that rehabilitation needs of people with stroke may change over time and therefore intermittent reassessment is important. Recommendations are appropriate for use by all healthcare providers and system planners who organize and provide care to patients following stroke across a broad range of settings. Unlike the previous set of recommendations, in which pediatric stroke was included, this set of recommendations includes primarily adult rehabilitation, recognizing many of these therapies may be applicable in children. Recommendations related to community reintegration, which were previously included within this rehabilitation module, can now be found in the companion module, Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Community Participation following Stroke. Part Two: Transitions and Community Participation Following Stroke.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1747493019897843

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Community Participation following Stroke. Part One: Rehabilitation and Recovery Following Stroke; 6th Edition Update 2019

Mary Lou Halabi

Papers

Canadian Stroke Best Practice Recommendations: Rehabilitation, Recovery, and Community Participation following Stroke. Part One: Rehabilitation and Recovery Following Stroke; 6th Edition Update 2019