Ignite Creation Date:
2025-12-18 @ 9:50 AM
Ignite Modification Date:
2025-12-18 @ 9:50 AM
Study NCT ID:
NCT05081713
Status:
None
Last Update Posted:
2025-02-27 00:00:00
First Post:
2021-09-24 00:00:00
Is Possible Gene Therapy:
False
Has Adverse Events:
False
Brief Title:
Locomotor Recovery and Compensation Post-stroke (LRC)
Sponsor:
None
Organization:
Study Overview
Official Title:
Locomotor Recovery and Compensation Post-stroke (LRC)
Status:
None
Status Verified Date:
2025-02
Last Known Status:
None
Delayed Posting:
No
If Stopped, Why?:
Not Stopped
Has Expanded Access:
False
If Expanded Access, NCT#:
N/A
Has Expanded Access, NCT# Status:
N/A
Acronym:
LRC
Brief Summary:
Recovery of locomotion is a primary goal of rehabilitation post-stroke and a major determinant of future morbidity and mortality. While substantial recovery is observed early post-stroke, recent evidence suggests the magnitude and time course of recovery is deterministic and based primarily on initial motor deficits. The "proportional recovery" rule suggests \~70% of neurological recovery (measured by the lower limb Fugl-Meyer Assessment - LL-FMA) is typically achieved and is not influenced by the dosage of therapy. These findings suggest the physical interventions applied to patients are of minimal importance to long-term recovery. That hypothesis conflicts directly with our recent efforts suggesting that maximizing the amount and intensity of task-specific (stepping) practice (high-intensity training; HIT) directly influences gains in locomotor function. Providing HIT at heart rates (HRs) greater than traditional aerobic paradigms (mean 110% baseline HRmax) is associated with gains in locomotor speed, which challenges the notion of "proportional recovery".
These conflicting hypotheses likely arise from differences in terminology and methodology used to characterize recovery post-stroke. First, the traditional measure of neurological recovery (LL-FMA) does not adequately characterize other impairments (strength, postural stability) that are more closely associated to locomotor function and are responsive to physical interventions. Second, despite gains in selected impairments, patients often utilize alternative (compensatory) movement patterns to accomplish locomotor tasks. More directly, locomotor recovery (i.e., speed/distance) is often accomplished using strategies employed prior to stroke and compensatory strategies, particularly in those with substantial impairments.
Our central hypothesis is that if changes in neurological recovery are deterministic, other measures of locomotor recovery or compensations may also be predictable. Our published data detail how HIT or conventional interventions can alter impairments and locomotor recovery, as well as changes in locomotor compensations. More directly, our data provide evidence that specific subgroups of patients demonstrate substantial compensations with improved recovery, whereas others reveal limited changes despite similar interventions. Data that detail the progression of neurological recovery, locomotor recovery, and locomotor compensations throughout the subacute to chronic phase post-stroke and their responsiveness to HIT is uncertain. Similar to upper limb recovery algorithms, predictions of mobility outcomes could provide valuable information to clinicians who make decisions regarding patient's prognosis, including whether patients will be able to walk with or without assistance or at certain speeds, and what compensatory strategies they may require to ambulate independently (braces, devices or altered movement patterns). The overarching goal of this project is to examine the time course of neurological and locomotor recovery, and associated compensatory strategies, over the subacute to chronic stages post-stroke and their responsiveness to HIT.
These conflicting hypotheses likely arise from differences in terminology and methodology used to characterize recovery post-stroke. First, the traditional measure of neurological recovery (LL-FMA) does not adequately characterize other impairments (strength, postural stability) that are more closely associated to locomotor function and are responsive to physical interventions. Second, despite gains in selected impairments, patients often utilize alternative (compensatory) movement patterns to accomplish locomotor tasks. More directly, locomotor recovery (i.e., speed/distance) is often accomplished using strategies employed prior to stroke and compensatory strategies, particularly in those with substantial impairments.
Our central hypothesis is that if changes in neurological recovery are deterministic, other measures of locomotor recovery or compensations may also be predictable. Our published data detail how HIT or conventional interventions can alter impairments and locomotor recovery, as well as changes in locomotor compensations. More directly, our data provide evidence that specific subgroups of patients demonstrate substantial compensations with improved recovery, whereas others reveal limited changes despite similar interventions. Data that detail the progression of neurological recovery, locomotor recovery, and locomotor compensations throughout the subacute to chronic phase post-stroke and their responsiveness to HIT is uncertain. Similar to upper limb recovery algorithms, predictions of mobility outcomes could provide valuable information to clinicians who make decisions regarding patient's prognosis, including whether patients will be able to walk with or without assistance or at certain speeds, and what compensatory strategies they may require to ambulate independently (braces, devices or altered movement patterns). The overarching goal of this project is to examine the time course of neurological and locomotor recovery, and associated compensatory strategies, over the subacute to chronic stages post-stroke and their responsiveness to HIT.
Detailed Description:
None
Study Oversight
Has Oversight DMC:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Drug?:
None
Is a FDA Regulated Device?:
None
Is an Unapproved Device?:
None
Is a PPSD?:
None
Is a US Export?:
None
Is an FDA AA801 Violation?: