Trials (Jul 2019)

PULSE-I - Is rePetitive Upper Limb SEnsory stimulation early after stroke feasible and acceptable? A stratified single-blinded randomised controlled feasibility study

  • Kausik Chatterjee,
  • Rachel C. Stockley,
  • Steven Lane,
  • Caroline Watkins,
  • Katy Cottrell,
  • Brenda Ankers,
  • Sioned Davies,
  • Mary Fisher Morris,
  • Nick Fallon,
  • Turo Nurmikko

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3428-y
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 1
pp. 1 – 12

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Reduction in sensorimotor function of the upper limb is a common and persistent impairment after stroke, and less than half of stroke survivors recover even basic function of the upper limb after a year. Previous work in stroke has shown that repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) of the upper limb may benefit motor function. As yet, there have been no investigations of RSS in the early-acute period despite this being the time window during which the neuroplastic processes underpinning sensorimotor recovery are likely to occur. Methods A single-blinded, stratified, randomised controlled feasibility study was undertaken at two NHS acute trusts to determine the recruitment rate, intervention adherence, and safety and acceptability of an RSS intervention in the early period after stroke. Participants were recruited within 2 weeks of index stroke. Stratified on arm function, they were randomised to receive either 45 min of daily RSS and usual care or usual care alone (UC) for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline on the primary outcome of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) to measurements taken by a blinded assessor were examined after completion of the intervention (2 weeks) and at 3 months from randomisation. Results Forty patients were recruited and randomised (RSS n = 23; UC n = 17) with a recruitment rate of 9.5% (40/417) of patients admitted with a stroke of which 52 (12.5%) were potentially eligible, with 10 declining to participate for various reasons. Participants found the RSS intervention acceptable and adherence was good. The intervention was safe and there were no serious adverse events. Conclusions This study indicates that recruitment to a trial of RSS in the acute period after stroke is feasible. The intervention was well tolerated and appeared to provide additional benefit to usual care. In addition to a definitive trial of efficacy, further work is warranted to examine the effects of varying doses of RSS upon arm function and the mechanism by which RSS induces sensorimotor recovery in the acute period after stroke. Trial registration ISRCTN, registry no: ISRCTN17422343; IRAS Project ID: 215137. Registered on October 2016

Keywords