The PAC program revealed a more economic 2, 3 and better recovery strategy 4 for stroke patient after acute phase. Current essay indicate benefits in ADL function, balance/coordination, walking speed, motor and sensory function of upper extremities after PAC hospitalization 1, 5, and in our study, we found all the improvements of BI, BAL, Gait Speed as well as upper sensory and motor function of FMA correlate to longer stays in PAC for stroke patients.
However, though recent investigation implied advancements in MRS, FOIS, MNA, QoL, IADL, 6MWT, MMSE, occupational mobility(amount use) of MAL, occupational mobility(quality) of MAL and CCAT 5, our data didn’t pointed out positive correlation between the duration in PAC and the above improvements. Interestingly, though not statistically significant, improvements in cognition and language, measuring in MMSE and CCAT, showed positive correlations with the duration in PAC to a certain degree, as p value reached 0.066 in MMSE and 0.060 in CCAT respectively.
The average length of stay in PAC in our study is 35.01±16.373 days, which is a little longer than previous data of 25.21~34.11 days admitted in PAC for stroke patients in sub-acute phase3. Ischemic stroke accounted for 76.7%(n=148) stroke patients and hemorrhagic type accounted for 23.3%(n=45), which is quite compatible with previous essay indicated in 80% of ischemic stroke and 20% of hemorrhagic stroke in epidemiological prevalence6.In our study, stroke patients included 60.6%(n=117) male and 39.4%(n=76) female. Generally, male stroke incidence and prevalence surpassed 33% and 41% than the female7.
One essay has shown that speech disorder could be found in 82.37% of stroke patients8 but in our study only 51.8%(n=100) receiving speech therapy and no positive relations between longer stay in PAC and improvements in CCAT. Dysphagia, on the other hand, were verified in 23% to 50% stroke patients9and 99% (N=191) of our stroke patients underwent swallowing training. FOIS was conducted to assess oral intake function and poor oral feeding may contribute to malnutrition in a certain way. Though FOIS and MNA do show benefits for stroke patient after PAC program5, both of them do not positively correlate to the duration of hospitalization in PAC in our study simultaneously.
Gait speed had positive correlation with the length of stay in PAC in our study while 6MWT didn’t. Usual gait speed is executed with regular distance(5 meters of valid testing, 1 meter for acceleration and 1 meter for deceleration) and recorded the time of walking to acquire walking velocity10. On the contrary, 6MWT is executed with regular time of 6 minutes and recorded the distance of walking within the time11. Gait speed is viewed as the sixth vital sign to assess general function and capacity of a person10 and Gait speed was found significantly and independently associated with 6- minute-walk distance in severe chronic lung disease12. Both Gait Speed and 6MWT allow patients bring their walking devices during examination but are invalid if the patients need help from other person to accomplish the examination. Both tests mainly base on patients’ ambulation by themselves, but 6MWT requires better cardiopulmonary capacity to achieve greater outcome. Thus, 6MWT may not show positive correlation to the length of stay in PAC as Gait speed does, since good cardiopulmonary capacity may not be easily established early in sub-acute phase of stroke.
ADL function is represented with MRS and BI in acute medical center and PAC setting. Relationship between MRS and BI in stroke patients was investigated in many essays, but there’s no consensus for it. Poor outcomes of stroke are viewed as MRS>3 and BI<6013. In our study, MRS doesn’t reveal significant correlation with the duration of hospitalization in PAC while Barthel index does. This may be elucidated with different measuring categories in these two measurements. MRS basically focus on ambulation and ability to accomplish activity before stroke attack with 0~6 scale. On the other hand, Barthel index mainly aims on the capability to complete various aspects in daily life with 0~100 scale. Previous essay have also pointed out MRS are mainly for global disable assessment and doesn’t account for limitation in normal activity of daily life14. That is to say, Barthel index is able to reflect small degree improvements of stroke patients and thus leading to significant correlation between its improvements and the length of stay in PAC.
Upper extremities function is evaluated by motor function of FMA and MAL(amount use/ quality) in our study. Current essay indicated more common use of FMA for post- stroke upper extremities function evaluation but international consensus of standard measurement is less established15. In our study, FMA showed significant correlation between its improvements and the length of stay in PAC but MAL didn’t. It could be explained by the divergent way of examining upper extremities in the two measurements. Motor function of FMA examines joint movement, i.e. wrist extension, and coordination(finger-to-nose)16. Meanwhile, MAL focus on whether the patient could finish certain tasks by their upper extremities, i.e. use a key to open a door by self-reporting 17. One essay revealed that FMA is more applicable for multiple impairment of upper extremity while MAL may be influenced by patient’s recall and cognition18. It takes more coordination and enough muscle power to execute tasks in MAL and thus more rehabilitation is needed after joint movements training. In the sub-acute phase of stroke patients in PAC, the improvements in the motor function of FMA could be manifest easier than MAL and therefore significant correlation between improvements in motor function of FMA and the length of stay in PAC was noted in our study.
Limitation
There are some limitations in our study. This is a retrospective and a single center research, so the results may not virtually apply to nation-wide or even worldwide stoke patients. Subgroup analysis, such as stroke type, gender and age, should be further investigated to acquire more information. Different recorders in each PAC may derive bias and so does the training efficacy variant in each institution. Last but not least, the judging scale may not fully represent the patients’ recovery and each measurement had its own restriction (i.e., 6MWT couldn’t represent cardiopulmonary capacity in bed-ridden stroke patients). Therefore, more survey is needed to clarify the above questions.