Advertisement

Rehabilitation Outcomes of Patients With Severe Disability Poststroke

      Abstract

      Objective

      To characterize rehabilitation outcomes of patients with severe poststroke motor impairment (MI) and develop a predictive model for treatment failure.

      Design

      Retrospective cohort study. Correlates of treatment failure, defined as the persistence of severe MI after rehabilitation, were identified using logistic regression analysis. Then, an integer-based scoring rule was developed from the logistic model.

      Setting

      Three specialized inpatient rehabilitation facilities.

      Participants

      Patients (N=1265) classified as case-mix groups (CMGs) 0108, 0109, and 0110 of the Medicare classification system.

      Interventions

      Not applicable.

      Main Outcome Measure

      Change in the severity of MI, as assessed by the FIM, from admission to discharge.

      Results

      Median FIM-motor (FIM-M) score increased from 17 (interquartile range [IQR] 14-23) to 38 (IQR, 25-55) points. Median proportional recovery, as expressed by FIM-M effectiveness, was 26% (IQR, 12-47). Median FIM-M change was 18 (IQR, 9-34) points. About 38.5% patients achieved the minimal clinically important difference. Eighteen point six percent and 32.0% of the patients recovered to a stage of either mild (FIM-M ≥62) or moderate (FIM-M 38-61) MI, respectively. All between-CMG differences were statistically significant. Outcomes have also been analyzed according to classification systems used in Australia and Canada. The scoring rule had an area under the curve of 0.833 (95% confidence interval, 0.808-0.858). Decision curve analysis displayed large net benefit of using the risk score compared with the treat all strategy.

      Conclusions

      This study provides a snapshot of rehabilitation outcomes in a large cohort of patients with severe poststroke MI, thus filling a gap in knowledge. The scoring rule accurately identified the patients at risk for treatment failure.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      AN-SNAP (Australian National Subacute and Non-acute Patient), AUC (area under the curve), CI (confidence interval), CMG (case-mix group), FIM-M (FIM-motor), IQR (interquartile range), IRF (inpatient rehabilitation facility), LOS (length of stay), MI (motor impairment), RPG (Rehabilitation Patient Group)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Feigin V.L.
        • Krishnamurthi R.V.
        • Parmar P.
        • et al.
        Update on the global burden of ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke in 1990-2013: the GBD 2013 study.
        Neuroepidemiology. 2015; 45: 161-176
        • Feigin V.L.
        • Norrving B.
        • Mensah G.A.
        Global burden of stroke.
        Circ Res. 2017; 120: 439-448
        • Dimyan M.A.
        • Cohen L.G.
        Neuroplasticity in the context of motor rehabilitation after stroke.
        Nat Rev Neurol. 2011; 7: 76-85
        • Bosetti F.
        • Koenig J.I.
        • Ayata C.
        • et al.
        Translational stroke research. Vision and opportunities.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 2632-2637
        • Lindgren A.
        • Maguire J.
        Stroke recovery genetics.
        Stroke. 2016; 47: 2427-2434
        • Cramer S.C.
        Drugs to enhance motor recovery after stroke.
        Stroke. 2015; 46: 2998-3005
        • Béjot Y.
        • Troisgros O.
        • Gremeaux V.
        • et al.
        Poststroke disposition and associated factors in a population-based study: the Dijon Stroke Registry.
        Stroke. 2012; 43: 2071-2077
        • Xian Y.
        • Thomas L.
        • Liang L.
        • et al.
        Unexplained variation for hospitals’ use of inpatient rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities after an acute ischemic stroke.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 2836-2842
        • Hakkennes S.J.
        • Brock K.
        • Hill K.D.
        Selection for inpatient rehabilitation after acute stroke: a systematic review of the literature.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 2057-2070
        • Ilett P.A.
        • Brock K.A.
        • Graven C.J.
        • Cotton S.M.
        Selecting patients for rehabilitation after acute stroke: are there variations in practice?.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 788-793
        • Pereira S.
        • Graham J.R.
        • Shahabaz A.
        • et al.
        Rehabilitation of individuals with severe stroke: synthesis of best evidence and challenges in implementation.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2012; 19: 122-131
        • Teasell R.
        • Pereira S.
        • Cotol A.
        The rehabilitation of severe stroke.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 30, 2017)
        • Lynch E.A.
        • Cadilhac D.A.
        • Luker J.A.
        • Hillier S.L.
        Inequities in access to inpatient rehabilitation after stroke: an international scoping review.
        Top Stroke Rehabil. 2017; 24: 619-626
        • Seel R.T.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Malec J.F.
        • Sherer M.
        • Macciocchi S.N.
        Developing and evaluating prediction models in rehabilitation populations.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S138-S153
        • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS
        Medicare program; inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system for FY 2006. Final rule.
        Fed Regist. 2005; 70: 47879-48006
        • Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
        Medicare program; inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system for federal fiscal year 2017; final rule.
        Fed Regist. 2016; 81: 52055-52141
        • Green J.
        • Gordon R.
        • Kobel C.
        • Blanchard M.
        • Eagar K.
        AN-SNAP V4 user manual.
        Centre for Health Service Development, University of Wollongong, 2015 (Available at:) (Accessed August 8, 2017)
        • Australasian Rehabilitation Outcomes Centre (AROC)
        AN-SNAP Version 3 & 4. Rehabilitation inpatient class calculator.
        (Available at:) (Accessed November 27, 2017)
        • Sutherland J.M.
        • Walker J.
        Challenges of rehabilitation case mix measurement in Ontario hospitals.
        Health Policy. 2008; 85: 336-348
        • Scrutinio D.
        • Lanzillo B.
        • Guida P.
        • et al.
        Development and validation of a predictive model for functional outcome after stroke rehabilitation: the Maugeri Model.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 3308-3315
        • Teasell R.
        • Hussein N.
        • Foley N.
        Managing the stroke rehabilitation triage process.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 30, 2017)
        • Stineman M.G.
        • Fiedler R.C.
        • Granger C.V.
        • Maislin G.
        Functional task benchmarks for stroke rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998; 79: 497-504
        • Gassaway J.
        • Horn S.D.
        • DeJong G.
        • Smout R.J.
        • Clark C.
        • James R.
        Applying the clinical practice improvement approach to stroke rehabilitation: methods used and baseline results.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: S16-S33
        • Han L.
        • Law-Gibson D.
        • Reding M.
        Key neurological impairments influence function-related group outcomes after stroke.
        Stroke. 2002; 33: 1920-1924
        • Stineman M.G.
        • Tassoni C.J.
        • Escarce J.J.
        • et al.
        Development of function-related groups version 2.0: a classification system for medical rehabilitation.
        Health Serv Res. 1997; 32: 529-548
        • DeJong G.
        • Horn S.D.
        • Smout R.J.
        • Ryser D.K.
        The early impact of the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system on stroke rehabilitation case mix, practice patterns, and outcomes.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: S93-S100
        • Koh G.C.
        • Chen C.H.
        • Petrella R.
        • Thind A.
        Rehabilitation impact indices and their independent predictors: a systematic review.
        BMJ Open. 2013; 3e003483
        • Beninato M.
        • Gill-Body K.M.
        • Salles S.
        • Stark P.C.
        • Black-Schaffer R.M.
        • Stein J.
        Determination of the minimal clinically important difference in the FIM instrument in patients with stroke.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 87: 32-39
        • Stinear C.M.
        Prediction of motor recovery after stroke: advances in biomarkers.
        Lancet Neurol. 2017; 16: 826-836
        • European Central Bank
        Statistical data warehouse.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 3, 2017)
        • Moons K.G.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Reitsma J.B.
        • et al.
        Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162: W1-W73
        • Stinear C.
        Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke.
        Lancet Neurol. 2010; 9: 1228-1232
        • Meyer M.J.
        • Pereira S.
        • McClure A.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of studies reporting multivariable models to predict functional outcomes after post-stroke inpatient rehabilitation.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2015; 37: 1316-1323
        • Brown A.W.
        • Therneau T.M.
        • Schultz B.A.
        • Niewczyk P.M.
        • Granger C.V.
        Measure of functional independence dominates discharge outcome prediction after inpatient rehabilitation for stroke.
        Stroke. 2015; 46: 1038-1044
        • Veerbeek J.M.
        • Kwakkel G.
        • van Wegen E.E.
        • Ket J.C.
        • Heymans M.W.
        Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review.
        Stroke. 2011; 42: 1482-1488
        • Harrell Jr., F.E.
        • Lee K.L.
        • Mark D.B.
        Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors.
        Stat Med. 1996; 15: 361-387
        • Vickers A.J.
        • Elkin E.B.
        Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models.
        Med Decis Making. 2006; 26: 565-574
        • Haaf P.
        • Drexler B.
        • Reichlin T.
        • et al.
        High-sensitivity cardiac troponin in the distinction of acute myocardial infarction from acute cardiac noncoronary artery disease.
        Circulation. 2012; 126: 31-40
        • Collins G.S.
        • Altman D.G.
        Predicting the 10 year risk of cardiovascular disease in the United Kingdom: independent and external validation of an updated version of QRISK2.
        BMJ. 2012; 344e4181
        • Kwakkel G.
        • Kollen B.
        • Twisk J.
        Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke.
        Stroke. 2006; 37: 2348-2353
        • Murphy T.H.
        • Corbett D.
        Plasticity during stroke recovery: from synapse to behaviour.
        Nat Rev Neurosci. 2009; 10: 861-872
        • Langhorne P.
        • Bernhardt J.
        • Kwakkel G.
        Stroke rehabilitation.
        Lancet. 2011; 377: 1693-1702
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Vergouwe Y.
        Towards better clinical prediction models: seven steps for development and an ABCD for validation.
        Eur Heart J. 2014; 35: 1925-1931
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        • Vickers A.J.
        Decision curve analysis: a discussion.
        Med Decis Making. 2008; 28: 146-149
        • Pereira S.
        • Foley N.
        • Salter K.
        • et al.
        Discharge destination of individuals with severe stroke undergoing rehabilitation: a predictive model.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2014; 36: 727-731
        • Nolfe G.
        • D'Aniello A.M.
        • Muscherà R.
        • Giaquinto S.
        The aftermath of rehabilitation for patients with severe stroke.
        Acta Neurol Scand. 2003; 107: 281-284
        • Nguyen V.Q.
        • PrvuBettger J.
        • Guerrier T.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with discharge to home versus discharge to institutional care after inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1297-1303
        • Horn S.D.
        • Deutscher D.
        • Smout R.J.
        • DeJong G.
        • Putman K.
        Black-white differences in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes in inpatient stroke rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 1712-1721
        • Chung D.M.
        • Niewczyk P.
        • DiVita M.
        • Markello S.
        • Granger C.
        Predictors of discharge to acute care after inpatient rehabilitation in severely affected stroke patients.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 91: 387-392
        • Moons K.G.
        • Kengne A.P.
        • Grobbee D.E.
        • et al.
        Risk prediction models: II. External validation, model updating, and impact assessment.
        Heart. 2012; 98: 691-698
        • Bernhardt J.
        • Hayward K.S.
        • Kwakkel G.
        • et al.
        Agreed definitions and a shared vision for new standards in stroke recovery research: the stroke recovery and rehabilitation roundtable taskforce.
        Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2017; 31: 793-799
        • Cramer S.C.
        • Wolf S.L.
        • Adams Jr., H.P.
        • et al.
        Stroke recovery and rehabilitation research: issues, opportunities, and the National Institutes of Health StrokeNet.
        Stroke. 2017; 48: 813-819
        • Austin P.C.
        • Steyerberg E.W.
        Events per variable (EPV) and the relative performance of different strategies for estimating the out-of-sample validity of logistic regression models.
        Stat Methods Med Res. 2017; 26: 796-808
        • Lohse K.R.
        • Lang C.E.
        • Boyd L.A.
        Is more better? Using metadata to explore dose-response relationships in stroke rehabilitation.
        Stroke. 2014; 45: 2053-2058