Participant characteristics
The characteristics of the 18 participants included in this study are shown in Table 1. As expected within an inpatient rehabilitation environment, most of the participants had experienced a stroke of moderate severity according to their NIHSS. Hospital admission data indicated that seven participants had a speech or language problem and had difficulty understanding instructions or had major speech and language impairments (aphasia). Additionally, the participants experienced moderate cognitive deficits across various domains, including comprehension, expression, social interaction, problem solving, and memory. The majority of the participants reported no or minimal anxiety or depression.
Table 1. Characteristics of participants. Values listed as mean ± SD or proportions (%).
Characteristic
|
Total sample (n = 18)
|
|
Age (yrs)
|
72 ± 10
|
|
Sex, number male (%)
|
12 (67%)
|
|
Stroke type, number ischemic (%)
|
14 (78%)
|
|
Days since stroke
|
31 ± 22
|
|
Stroke volume (cm3)
|
131 ± 237
|
|
Stroke Region
|
|
|
Brain stem, n (%)
|
7 (39%)
|
|
Basal ganglia, n (%)
|
3 (17%)
|
|
Temporal/Parietal lobes, n (%)
|
3 (17%)
|
|
MCA territory, n (%)
|
2 (11%)
|
|
Cerebellum, n (%)
|
1 (6%)
|
|
Multi-territorial cerebrum, n (%)
|
1 (6%)
|
|
Internal capsule, n (%)
|
1 (6%)
|
|
Stroke Severity (NIHSS)
|
|
|
No stroke symptoms, n (%)
|
1 (6%)
|
|
Minor stroke, n (%)
|
5 (28%)
|
|
Moderate stroke, n (%)
|
10 (56%)
|
|
Moderate-severe stroke, n (%)
|
1 (6%)
|
|
Severe stroke, n (%)
|
0 (0%)
|
|
Depression and Anxiety (EQ-5D-5L)
|
|
|
|
No/slight symptoms (score 1-2)
|
14 (78%)
|
|
Moderate symptoms (score 3)
|
4 (22%)
|
|
Severe/extreme symptoms (score 4-5)
|
0 (0%)
|
Cognitive Function, FIM (Cognitive score 0-35)
|
18 ± 6
|
|
Motor Function, FIM (Motor score 0-91)
|
38 ± 18
|
|
Motor Performance (Grip strength), kg
|
|
|
Hemiplegic
|
16.3 ± 12.2
|
|
Non-hemiplegic
|
24.4 ± 12.7
|
|
Motor Performance (Box and block test), blocks per min
|
|
|
Hemiplegic
|
15.3 ± 11.6
|
|
Non-hemiplegic
|
27.8 ± 7.0
|
|
Abbreviations: EQ-5D-5L = EuroQol-5D-5L; FIM = Functional Independence Measure; MCA = middle cerebral artery; NIHSS = National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale
Fatigue and physical function
Twenty eight percent (n=5) of participants indicated that exercise brings on their fatigue (defined as a score of 1-3/7) (Fig 1A). Additionally, 41% (n=7) indicated that fatigue interferes with their physical functioning (defined as a score of 1-3/7) (Fig 1B). Thirty nine percent (n=7) of participants indicated that sustained physical functioning is prevented by fatigue (defined as a score of 1-3/7) (Fig 1C). Thirty nine percent of participants (n=7) experienced moderate global fatigue (defined as a score of 5-6/10), measured on a Visual Analogue Fatigue Scale (Fig 1D).
Figure 1. Participants experience of fatigue measured via the (A-C) Fatigue Severity Scale and the (D) Visual Analogue Fatigue Scale.
Sleep in stroke patients during inpatient rehabilitation
Participant’s sleep during inpatient rehabilitation is summarized in Table 2. The Philips Actiwatch was an objective measure of participants’ sleep and results indicated that participants slept for an average of 8.4 hours (SD=1.6), they woke an average of 25 times (SD=14) throughout the night, and their sleep efficiency was 84.5% (SD=10.8). Subjective reporting by participants indicated that 7 participants awoke during the night for toileting (38.7%), 3 participants woke for spontaneous or unknown reason (16.7%), 3 participants woke for nursing or related care (16.7%), and 2 participants woke to hospital noises (11.1%). Overnight sleep-related nursing notations were recorded for 8 participants, with half (n=4) reporting that the participant “slept well”.
Table 2. Assessment of post-stroke sleep quality via objective (Philips Actiwatch, nursing progress notes) and subjective (patient reported awakening) measurements. Values listed as mean ± SD or proportions (%).
Measurement
|
|
Philips Actiwatch (n=18)
|
|
Sleep onset latency (mins)
|
31.1 ± 40.7
|
Total sleep time (hrs)
|
8.4 ± 1.6
|
Number of awakenings (count)
|
25 ± 14
|
Wake after sleep (mins)
|
30.3 ± 22.9
|
Sleep efficiency (%)
|
84.5 ± 10.8
|
Nursing Progress Notes reporting (n=8)
|
|
Slept well (%)
|
4 (50%)
|
Disrupted overnight (%)
|
2 (25%)
|
Woke for toilet (%)
|
1 (12.5%)
|
Disturbed/Agitates (%)
|
1 (12.5%)
|
Patient report awakening (n=18)
|
|
Toilet (%)
|
7 (38.9%)
|
Spontaneous/Unknown (%)
|
3 (16.7%)
|
Nursing care related (%)
|
3 (16.7%)
|
Hospital Noises (%)
|
2 (11.1%)
|
No reports (%)
|
3 (16.7%)
|
Half of all participants (n=9) indicated that getting to sleep was “more difficult” following stroke compared to before (defined as a score of 0-4/10), the majority (67%, n=12) indicated that they were “more restless” than usual (defined as a score of 0-4/10), and 44% (n=8) had more difficulty awakening. Of interest, 56% (n=10) indicated that they were clumsier upon awakening following stroke compared to before (defined as a score of 0-4/10). There was a significant relationship between quality of sleep and severity of stroke (r=-0.506, p=0.04). There was no significant relationship between other participants’ characteristics and measures of sleep.
The relationship between sleep and fatigue
There was a significant negative correlation between the severity of fatigue (Fatigue Severity Scale) and the experience of participants when they woke up (r=-0.656, p=0.003) (Table 3). Additionally, there was a significant negative correlation between the severity of fatigue and the total score for participants evaluation of their sleep (r=-0.539, p=0.021).
The relationship between motor performance and fatigue or sleep
There were no significant correlations between fatigue and motor performance (Supplementary File 1). The relationships between motor performance, and both subjective (Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire) and objective (Philips Actiwatch) measures of sleep, are shown in Table 4. There was a negative relationship between motor performance measured via grip strength on the non-hemiplegic side and awakenings from sleep (r=-0.48, p=0.046). Additionally, there was a positive relationship between sleep onset latency and motor performance measured via the box and block test on the non-hemiplegic side (r=0.743, p=<0.001). There were no significant relationships between hemiplegic limb performance and objective or subjective measures of sleep.
The relationship between participants’ stroke characteristics and salivary biomarkers
Salivary samples were used to measure gene expression of stress, inflammation, circadian, and neuroplasticity markers. The relationship between gene expression and stroke characteristics, fatigue, and motor performance are summarized in Table 5. There was a positive correlation between the days since stroke and salivary CRP gene expression (r=0.615, p=0.025). Additionally, there was a positive relationship between stroke severity and IL1-b gene expression (r=0.78, p=0.003). There was no statistically significant between stroke characteristics and telomere length, NR3C1, TNF-α, BDNF, MTNR1A or MTNR1B expression. There was a positive relationship between global fatigue and salivary MTNR1B expression (r=0.564, p=0.045), but there was no significant relationship between fatigue and other salivary gene expression levels.
There was a negative relationship between grip strength in the hemiplegic side and salivary CRP gene expression (r=-0.556, p=0.048). Additionally, there was a positive relationship between grip strength on the non-hemiplegic side and salivary BDNF gene expression (r=0.606, p=0.028). Furthermore, there was a significant negative relationship between grip strength on the hemiplegic arm and MTNR1B salivary gene expression (r=-0.558, p=0.048). There were no statistically significant relationships between motor performance and telomere length, or NR3C1, CRP, IL-1b, TNF-α or MTNR1A gene expression.
Table 3. Relationship between post-stroke sleep and fatigue.
Measure of fatigue
|
Leeds sleep evaluation questionnaire
|
Philips Actiwatch
|
|
Going to Sleep
‘r’
|
Quality of sleep
‘r’
|
Awakening from Sleep
‘r’
|
Behavior following Awakening
‘r’
|
Total
‘r’
|
Sleep onset latency
‘r’
|
Total sleep time
‘r’
|
Number of awakenings
‘r’
|
Wake after sleep ‘r’
|
Sleep efficiency
‘r’
|
Fatigue Severity Scale
|
-0.273
|
-0.337†
|
-0.258
|
-0.656*
|
-0.539*
|
-0.078
|
0.255
|
0.045
|
-0.060
|
0.136
|
Visual Analogue Fatigue Severity Scale
|
0.03
|
-0.073†
|
0.179
|
0.355
|
0.213
|
0.06
|
-0.27
|
0.186
|
0.285
|
-0.359
|
‘r’ indicates Pearson correlation coefficient. † indicates Spearman rank correlation coefficient for data violating normality. * indicates significant correlation between post-stroke sleep quality and the independent variable (p<0.05).
Table 4. Relationship between post-stroke sleep and motor function.
Motor test
|
Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire
|
Philips Actiwatch
|
|
Going to Sleep
‘r’
|
Quality of sleep
‘r’
|
Awakening from Sleep
‘r’
|
Behavior following Awakening
‘r’
|
Total
‘r’
|
Sleep onset latency
‘r’
|
Total sleep time
‘r’
|
Number of awakenings
‘r’
|
Wake after sleep ‘r’
|
Sleep efficiency
‘r’
|
Grip strength, kgs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hemiplegic
|
-0.22
|
-0.08†
|
-0.35
|
-0.19
|
-0.30
|
0.201
|
-0.309
|
-0.109
|
0.091
|
-0.242
|
Non-hemiplegic
|
-0.26
|
-0.22†
|
-0.48*
|
0.01
|
-0.33
|
0.348
|
-0.173
|
0.087
|
-0.113
|
-0.237
|
Box and block test, blocks per s
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hemiplegic
|
-0.14
|
0.22†
|
0.13
|
0.04
|
0.02
|
-0.222
|
-0.226
|
0.118
|
0.442
|
-0.165
|
Non-hemiplegic
|
-0.24
|
0.12†
|
-0.32†
|
0.11†
|
-0.25†
|
0.743*
|
-0.356
|
-0.288
|
-0.58
|
-0.269
|
‘r’ indicates Pearson correlation coefficient. † indicates Spearman rank correlation coefficient for data violating normality. * indicates significant correlation between post-stroke sleep quality and the independent variable (p<0.05).
Table 5. Relationship between participant stroke characteristics, fatigue, motor performance, and salivary gene expression.
Expression of gene or telomere length
|
Stroke volume
‘r’
|
Stroke severity
(NIHSS category)
‘r’
|
Days since stoke
‘r’
|
Fatigue measured via FSS
‘r’
|
Global fatigue measure via VAFS
|
Grip strength
Hemiplegic
|
Grip strength
Non -Hemiplegic
|
Box and block test
Hemiplegic
|
Box and block test
Non-Hemiplegic
|
Stress
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Telomere length
|
0.267
|
0.058
|
-0.1
|
-0.234†
|
0.53†
|
-0.052
|
0.291
|
0.113
|
-0.003
|
NR3C1 gene
|
0.139
|
-0.163
|
0.415†
|
0.133
|
0.155
|
-0.482
|
-0.393
|
-0.031
|
-0.094
|
Inflammation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CRP gene
|
0.1
|
0.455
|
0.615*
|
0.212†
|
0.438†
|
-0.556*
|
-0.187
|
-0.514
|
-0.097
|
IL1-b gene
|
0.297
|
0.78*
|
0.042†
|
-0.185
|
0.131
|
0.005
|
0.378
|
-0.414
|
0.153
|
TNF-α gene
|
0.448
|
0.516
|
0.202†
|
0.127
|
0.405
|
-0.266
|
0.081
|
-0.266
|
0.148
|
Neuroplasticity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BDNF gene
|
0.02
|
0.333
|
-0.047†
|
0.003
|
-0.132
|
0.471
|
0.608*
|
-0.043
|
0.112
|
Melatonin receptor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MTNR1A
|
0.512
|
0.560
|
0.546†
|
-0.080
|
0.423
|
-0.494
|
-0.074
|
-0.491
|
-0.101
|
MTNR1B
|
0.521
|
0.520
|
0.313†
|
-0.239
|
0.564*
|
-0.558*
|
-0.026
|
-0.264
|
-0.127
|
‘r’ indicates Pearson correlation coefficient. † indicates Spearman rank correlation coefficient for data violating normality. * indicates significant correlation between participant stroke characteristics and salivary biomarkers (p<0.05).
Abbreviations: BDNF = Brain derived neurotrophic factor; CRP = C-reactive protein; FSS = Fatigue Severity Scale; IL1-b = Interleukin 1 beta, MTNR1A = Melatonin receptor 1a, MTNR1B = Melatonin receptor 1b; NIHSS = National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NR3C1 = Glucocorticoid receptor; TNF- α = Tumour necrosis factor alpha; VAFS = Visual Analogue Fatigue Scale.