Affiliation:
1. Moscow Centre for Research and Practice in Medical Rehabilitation, Restorative and Sports Medicine; Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
2. Moscow Centre for Research and Practice in Medical Rehabilitation, Restorative and Sports Medicine
Abstract
Cerebral stroke (CS) remains the most important medical and social problem. According to available data, only 25% of stroke survivors return to the premorbid level of daily or work activity, most patients have residual neurological disorders of varying severity. Effective rehabilitation of patients with CS requires not only timely initiation of treatment, but also an individual choice of rehabilitation program. To optimize the rehabilitation strategy in each case, it is necessary to set goals and objectives taking into account the rehabilitation potential (RP) and the prognosis of the patient’s recovery. This paper provides a definition of RP and ways to describe it. The existing neurophysiological methods for assessing the RP of functional recovery after CS, such as electroencephalography, evoked potentials and diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), are considered. Information about neuroimaging diagnostic methods – computer (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the context of determining RP is presented. The possibilities of functional and diffusion-t ensor MRI of the brain for assessing RP in various periods of the disease are highlighted in detail. Other possible predictors of the restoration of impaired functions are also considered – the volume and localization of the brain lesion, the patient’s age, cognitive functions and laboratory parameters. Modern complex approaches to the formation of algorithms for the quantitative assessment of RP are described. In particular, the current algorithms for evaluating RP – PREP2 for the upper limb and TWIST for predicting the recovery of walking disorders are described. Currently, there are no generally accepted methods for determining and quantifying RP. The instruments proposed for this purpose are insufficiently sensitive and specific or are not suitable for routine clinical practice.
Reference62 articles.
1. Feigin V.L., Stark B.A., Johnson C.O., Roth G.A., Bisignano C., Abady G.G. et al. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurology. 2021;20(10):795–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(21)00252-0.
2. Wafa H.A., Wolfe C.D.A., Emmett E., Roth G.A., Johnson C.O., Wang Y. Burden of Stroke in Europe. Stroke. 2020;51(8):2418–2427. https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.120.029606.
3. Foreman K.J., Marquez N., Dolgert A., Fukutaki K., Fullman N., McGaughey M. et al. Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and allcause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):2052–2090. https://doi.org/10.1016/s01406736(18)31694-5.
4. Feigin V.L., Krishnamurthi R.V., Barker- Collo S., McPherson K.M., Barber P.A., Parag V. et al.; ARCOS IV Group. 30-Year Trends in Stroke Rates and Outcome in Auckland, New Zealand (1981–2012): A Multi- Ethnic Population- Based Series of Studies. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(8):e0134609. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134609.
5. Pearson- Stuttard J., Guzman- Castillo M., Penalvo J.L., Rehm C.D., Afshin A., Danaei G. et al. Modeling Future Cardiovascular Disease Mortality in the United States. Circulation. 2016;133(10):967–978. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.115.019904.