Background

About half of survivors with stroke experience severe and significant long-term disability. The purpose of this article is to review the state of the science and to make recommendations for measuring patient-centric outcomes in interventions for motor improvement in the chronic stroke phase.

Methods and results

A 9-member expert panel reviewed evidence to identify measures of upper and lower extremity function used to date as outcomes in trials with patients who experienced a stroke ≥6 months before assessment. Outcome measures were screened using StrokEDGE consensus panel recommendations, and evaluated for availability of a published minimal clinically important difference. Measures meeting these criteria were further evaluated with regard to their level of measurement, psychometric properties, and ability of minimal clinically important difference to capture gains associated with improved function and clinical relevance to patients, to arrive at recommendations. A systematic literature review yielded 115 clinical trials of upper and lower extremity function in chronic stroke that used a total of 34 outcome measures. Seven of these had published minimal clinically important differences and were recommended or highly recommended by StrokEDGE. Those are the Fugl-Meyer Upper Extremity and Lower Extremity scales, Wolf Motor Function Test, Action Research Arm Test, Ten-Meter and Six-Minute Walk Tests, and the Stroke Impact Scale. All had evidence for their psychometric performance, although the strength of evidence for validity varied, especially in populations with chronic stroke Fugl-Meyer Upper and Lower Extremity scales showing the strongest evidence for validity.

Conclusions

The panel recommends that the Fugl-Meyer Upper and Lower Extremity scales be used as primary outcomes in intervention trials targeting motor function in populations with chronic stroke. The other 6 measures are recommended as secondary outcomes.

Purpose

To use baseline computed tomographic (CT) angiography to analyze imaging and clinical end points in an Interventional Management of Stroke III cohort to identify patients who would benefit from endovascular stroke therapy.

Materials and methods

The primary clinical end point was 90-day dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. Secondary end points were 90-day mRS score distribution and 24-hour recanalization. Prespecified subgroup was baseline proximal occlusions (internal carotid, M1, or basilar arteries). Exploratory analyses were subsets with any occlusion and specific sites of occlusion (two-sided α = .01).

Results

Of 656 subjects, 306 (47%) underwent baseline CT angiography or magnetic resonance angiography. Of 306, 282 (92%) had arterial occlusions. At baseline CT angiography, proximal occlusions (n = 220) demonstrated no difference in primary outcome (41.3% [62 of 150] endovascular vs 38% [27 of 70] intravenous [IV] tissue-plasminogen activator [tPA]; relative risk, 1.07 [99% confidence interval: 0.67, 1.70]; P = .70); however, 24-hour recanalization rate was higher for endovascular treatment (n = 167; 84.3% [97 of 115] endovascular vs 56% [29 of 52] IV tPA; P < .001). Exploratory subgroup analysis for any occlusion at baseline CT angiography did not demonstrate significant differences between endovascular and IV tPA arms for primary outcome (44.7% [85 of 190] vs 38% [35 of 92], P = .29), although ordinal shift analysis of full mRS distribution demonstrated a trend toward more favorable outcome (P = .011). Carotid T- or L-type occlusion (terminal internal carotid artery [ICA] with M1 middle cerebral artery and/or A1 anterior cerebral artery involvement) or tandem (extracranial or intracranial) ICA and M1 occlusion subgroup also showed a trend favoring endovascular treatment over IV tPA alone for primary outcome (26% [12 of 46] vs 4% [one of 23], P = .047).

Conclusion

Significant differences were identified between treatment arms for 24-hour recanalization in proximal occlusions; carotid T- or L-type and tandem ICA and M1 occlusions showed greater recanalization and a trend toward better outcome with endovascular treatment. Vascular imaging should be mandated in future endovascular trials to identify such occlusions. Online supplemental material is available for this article.