Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.
What this blog is for:
My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html
Monday, January 22, 2018
Efficacy and Safety of Individualized Coaching After Stroke: the LAST Study (Life After Stroke)
Another fucking coaching article. NO leadership displayed here. Your doctor has to do nothing. In fact your doctor is useless.
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Background and Purpose—The evidence for interventions to prevent functional decline in the long term after stroke is lacking. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an 18-month follow-up program of individualized regular coaching on physical activity and exercise.
Methods—This was a multicentre, pragmatic, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Adults (age ≥18 years) with first-ever or recurrent stroke, community dwelling, with modified Rankin Scale <5, and no serious comorbidities were included 10 to 16 weeks poststroke. The intervention group received individualized regular coaching on physical activity and exercise every month for 18 consecutive months. The control group received standard care. Primary outcome was the Motor Assessment Scale at end of intervention (18-month follow-up). Secondary measures were Barthel index, modified Rankin Scale, item 14 from Berg Balance Scale, Timed Up and Go test, gait speed, 6-minute walk test, and Stroke Impact Scale. Other outcomes were adverse events and compliance to the intervention assessed by training diaries and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire.
Results—Three hundred and eighty consenting participants were randomly assigned to individualized coaching (n=186) or standard care (n=194). The mean estimated difference on Motor Assessment Scale in favor of control group was −0.70 points (95% confidence interval, −2.80, 1.39), P=0.512. There were no differences between the groups on Barthel index, modified Rankin Scale, or Berg Balance Scale. The frequency of adverse events was low in both groups. Results from International Physical Activity Questionnaire and training diaries showed increased activity levels but low intensity of the exercise in the intervention group.
Conclusions—The regular individualized coaching did not improve maintenance of motor function or the secondary outcomes compared with standard care. The intervention should be regarded as safe. Despite the neutral results, the health costs related to the intervention should be investigated.