Reproducibility and accuracy of ABC/2 and 3D techniques in ICH volume measurement

Prediction of lower extremity motor recovery in persons with severe lower extremity paresis after stroke

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the extent of motor recovery and predict the prognosis of lower extremity (LE) recovery in patients with severe LE paresis after stroke Methods: 137 patients with severe LE paresis after stroke were recruited from a local medical centre. Voluntary LE movement was assessed with the LE subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM-LE). Univariate and stepwise regression analyses were used to investigate 25 clinical variables (including demographic, neuroimaging, and behavioural variables) for finding the predictors of LE recovery.

RESULTS

The STREAM-LE at discharge (DC_STREAM-LE) of the participants covered a very wide range (0-19). Specifically, 5.1% of the participants were nearly completely recovered, 11.7% were moderately recovered, 36.5% were slightly recovered, and 46.7% remained severely paralysed. 'Score of STREAM-LE at admission (AD_STREAM-LE)' and 'volume of lesion and oedema') were significant predictors of LE movement at discharge, explaining 25.1% of the variance of the DC_STREAM-LE (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LE motor recovery varied widely in our participants, indicating that patients' recovery might not follow simple rules. The low predictive power (about a quarter) indicates that LE motor recovery in patients with severe LE paresis after stroke was hardly predictive.

A nested mechanistic sub-study into the effect of tranexamic acid versus placebo on intracranial haemorrhage and cerebral ischaemia in isolated traumatic brain injury: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (CRASH-3 Trial Intracranial Bleeding Mechanistic Sub-Study [CRASH-3 IBMS])

Background

Tranexamic acid prevents blood clots from breaking down and reduces bleeding. However, it is uncertain whether tranexamic acid is effective in traumatic brain injury. The CRASH-3 trial is a randomised controlled trial that will examine the effect of tranexamic acid (versus placebo) on death and disability in 13,000 patients with traumatic brain injury. The CRASH-3 trial hypothesizes that tranexamic acid will reduce intracranial haemorrhage, which will reduce the risk of death. Although it is possible that tranexamic acid will reduce intracranial bleeding, there is also a potential for harm. In particular, tranexamic acid may increase the risk of cerebral thrombosis and ischaemia. The protocol detailed here is for a mechanistic sub-study nested within the CRASH-3 trial. This mechanistic sub-study aims to examine the effect of tranexamic acid (versus placebo) on intracranial bleeding and cerebral ischaemia.

Methods

The CRASH-3 Intracranial Bleeding Mechanistic Sub-Study (CRASH-3 IBMS) is nested within a prospective, double-blind, multi-centre, parallel-arm randomised trial called the CRASH-3 trial. The CRASH-3 IBMS will be conducted in a cohort of approximately 1000 isolated traumatic brain injury patients enrolled in the CRASH-3 trial. In the CRASH-3 IBMS, brain scans acquired before and after randomisation are examined, using validated methods, for evidence of intracranial bleeding and cerebral ischaemia. The primary outcome is the total volume of intracranial bleeding measured on computed tomography after randomisation, adjusting for baseline bleeding volume. Secondary outcomes include progression of intracranial haemorrhage (from pre- to post-randomisation scans), new intracranial haemorrhage (seen on post- but not pre-randomisation scans), intracranial haemorrhage following neurosurgery, and new focal ischaemic lesions (seen on post-but not pre-randomisation scans). A linear regression model will examine whether receipt of the trial treatment can predict haemorrhage volume. Bleeding volumes and new ischaemic lesions will be compared across treatment groups using relative risks and 95% confidence intervals.

Discussion

The CRASH-3 IBMS will provide an insight into the mechanism of action of tranexamic acid in traumatic brain injury, as well as information about the risks and benefits. Evidence from this trial could inform the management of patients with traumatic brain injury.

Trial registration

The CRASH-3 trial was prospectively registered and the CRASH-3 IBMS is an addition to the original protocol registered at the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry (ISRCTN15088122) 19 July 2011, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 25 July 2011 (NCT01402882).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2073-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predicting recovery of voluntary upper extremity movement in subacute stroke patients with severe upper extremity paresis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Prediction of voluntary upper extremity (UE) movement recovery is largely unknown in patients with little voluntary UE movement at admission. The present study aimed to investigate (1) the extent and variation of voluntary UE movement recovery, and (2) the best predictive model of the recovery of voluntary UE movement by clinical variables in patients with severe UE paresis.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

140 (out of 590) stroke patients with severe UE paresis completed all assessments. Voluntary UE movement was assessed using the UE subscale of the Stroke Rehabilitation Assessment of Movement (STREAM-UE). Two outcome measures, STREAM-UE scores at discharge (DC(STREAM-UE)) and changes between admission and discharge (Δ(STREAM-UE)), were investigated to represent the final states and improvement of the recovery of voluntary UE movement. Stepwise regression analyses were used to investigate 19 clinical variables and to find the best predictive models of the two outcome measures.

RESULTS

The participants showed wide variation in both DC(STREAM-UE) and Δ(STREAM-UE). 3.6% of the participants almost fully recovered at discharge (DC(STREAM-UE) > 15). A large improvement (Δ(STREAM-UE) >= 10) occurred in 16.4% of the participants, while 32.9% of the participants did not have any improvement. The four predictors for the DC(STREAM-UE) (R(2) = 35.0%) were 'baseline STREAM-UE score', 'hemorrhagic stroke', 'baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score', and 'cortical lesion excluding primary motor cortex'. The three predictors for the Δ(STREAM-UE) (R(2) = 22.0%) were 'hemorrhagic stroke', 'baseline NIHSS score', and 'cortical lesion excluding primary motor cortex'.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery of voluntary UE movement varied widely in patients with severe UE paresis after stroke. The predictive power of clinical variables was poor. Both results indicate the complex nature of voluntary UE movement recovery in patients with severe UE paresis after stroke.