Advertisement

Brain Imaging and Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 1804–1813 | Cite as

Early functional MRI activation predicts motor outcome after ischemic stroke: a longitudinal, multimodal study

  • Juan Du
  • Fang Yang
  • Zhiqiang Zhang
  • Jingze Hu
  • Qiang Xu
  • Jianping Hu
  • Fanyong Zeng
  • Guangming LuEmail author
  • Xinfeng LiuEmail author
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
  • 133 Downloads

Abstract

An accurate prediction of long term outcome after stroke is urgently required to provide early individualized neurorehabilitation. This study aimed to examine the added value of early neuroimaging measures and identify the best approaches for predicting motor outcome after stroke. This prospective study involved 34 first-ever ischemic stroke patients (time since stroke: 1–14 days) with upper limb impairment. All patients underwent baseline multimodal assessments that included clinical (age, motor impairment), neurophysiological (motor-evoked potentials, MEP) and neuroimaging (diffusion tensor imaging and motor task-based fMRI) measures, and also underwent reassessment 3 months after stroke. Bivariate analysis and multivariate linear regression models were used to predict the motor scores (Fugl-Meyer assessment, FMA) at 3 months post-stroke. With bivariate analysis, better motor outcome significantly correlated with (1) less initial motor impairment and disability, (2) less corticospinal tract injury, (3) the initial presence of MEPs, (4) stronger baseline motor fMRI activations. In multivariate analysis, incorporating neuroimaging data improved the predictive accuracy relative to only clinical and neurophysiological assessments. Baseline fMRI activation in SMA was an independent predictor of motor outcome after stroke. A multimodal model incorporating fMRI and clinical measures best predicted the motor outcome following stroke. fMRI measures obtained early after stroke provided independent prediction of long-term motor outcome.

Keywords

Stroke Motor deficits Outcome prediction Functional magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion tensor imaging Motor evoked potentials 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by grants of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 81530038, 81501193, 81701299), Jiangsu Province Foundation of China (no. BK20141373), the special scientific research fund of public welfare profession of national health and family planning commission of China (no. 201402019) and Independent research project in State Key Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry for Life Science (no. 5431ZZXM1716).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (the Internal Review Board of Jinling Hospital) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Alagona, G., & Delvaux, V., et al. (2001). Ipsilateral motor responses to focal transcranial magnetic stimulation in healthy subjects and acute-stroke patients. Stroke, 32(6), 1304–1309.Google Scholar
  2. Bembenek, J. P., & Kurczych, K., et al. (2012). The prognostic value of motor-evoked potentials in motor recovery and functional outcome after stroke - a systematic review of the literature. Functional Neurology, 27(2), 79–84.Google Scholar
  3. Brott, T., & Adams, H. J., et al. (1989). Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke, 20(7), 864–70.Google Scholar
  4. Compston, A. (2010). Aids to the investigation of peripheral nerve injuries. Medical research council: nerve injuries research committee. His majesty’s stationery office: 1942; pp. 48 (iii) and 74 figures and 7 diagrams; with aids to the examination of the peripheral nervous system. By Michael O’Brien for the Guarantors of Brain. Saunders Elsevier: 2010; pp. [8] 64 and 94 Figures.” Brain 133 (10): 2838–44.Google Scholar
  5. Coupar, F., & Pollock, A., et al. (2012). Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(4), 291–313.Google Scholar
  6. Delvaux, V., & Alagona, G., et al. (2003). Post-stroke reorganization of hand motor area: a 1-year prospective follow-up with focal transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(7), 1217–1225.Google Scholar
  7. Du, J., & Tian, L., et al. (2016). Effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on motor recovery and motor cortex excitability in patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial. European Journal of Neurology, 23(11), 1666–1672.Google Scholar
  8. Feigin, V. L., & Forouzanfar, M. H., et al. (2014). Global and regional burden of stroke during 1990–2010: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 383(9913), 245–54.Google Scholar
  9. Gladstone, D. J., & Danells, C. J., et al. (2002). The fugl-meyer assessment of motor recovery after stroke: a critical review of its measurement properties. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair 16 (3): 232–40.Google Scholar
  10. Groppa, S., & Oliviero, A., et al. (2012). A practical guide to diagnostic transcranial magnetic stimulation: report of an IFCN committee.”. Clinical Neurophysiology, 123(5), 858–82.Google Scholar
  11. Harvey, R. L. (2015). Predictors of functional outcome following stroke. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Clinics of North America 26 (4): 583–98.Google Scholar
  12. Heiss, W. D., & Kidwell, C. S. (2014). Imaging for prediction of functional outcome and assessment of recovery in ischemic stroke. Stroke 45 (4): 1195–201.Google Scholar
  13. Langhorne, P., & Bernhardt, J., et al. (2011). Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet, 377(9778), 1693–702.Google Scholar
  14. Loubinoux, I., & Carel, C., et al. (2003). Correlation between cerebral reorganization and motor recovery after subcortical infarcts. Neuroimage, 20(4), 2166–2180.Google Scholar
  15. Marshall, R. S., & Zarahn, E., et al. (2009). Early imaging correlates of subsequent motor recovery after stroke. Annals of Neurology, 65(5), 596–602.Google Scholar
  16. Nascimbeni, A., & Gaffuri, A., et al. (2006). Motor evoked potentials: prognostic value in motor recovery after stroke. Functional Neurology, 21(4), 199–203.Google Scholar
  17. Park, C. H., & Chang, W. H., et al. (2011). Longitudinal changes of resting-state functional connectivity during motor recovery after stroke. Stroke, 42(5), 1357–1362.Google Scholar
  18. Prabhakaran, S., & Zarahn, E., et al. (2008). Inter-individual variability in the capacity for motor recovery after ischemic stroke. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 22(1), 64–71.Google Scholar
  19. Puig, J., & Pedraza, S., et al. (2010). Wallerian degeneration in the corticospinal tract evaluated by diffusion tensor imaging correlates with motor deficit 30 days after middle cerebral artery ischemic stroke. AJNR. American Journal of Neuroradiology, 31(7), 1324–1330.Google Scholar
  20. Rehme, A. K., & Eickhoff, S. B., et al. (2012). Activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis of motor-related neural activity after stroke. Neuroimage, 59(3), 2771–2782.Google Scholar
  21. Rossini, P. M., & Burke, D., et al. (2015). Non-invasive electrical and magnetic stimulation of the brain, spinal cord, roots and peripheral nerves: basic principles and procedures for routine clinical and research application. An updated report from an I.F.C.N. Committee. Clinical Neurophysiology, 126(6), 1071–107.Google Scholar
  22. Stebbins, G. T., & Nyenhuis, D. L., et al. (2008). Gray matter atrophy in patients with ischemic stroke with cognitive impairment. Stroke, 39(3), 785–93.Google Scholar
  23. Stinear, C. (2010). Prediction of recovery of motor function after stroke. Lancet Neurol, 9(12), 1228–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stinear, C. M., & Barber, P. A., et al. (2007). Functional potential in chronic stroke patients depends on corticospinal tract integrity. Brain, 130(Pt 1), 170–80.Google Scholar
  25. Tombari, D., & Loubinoux, I., et al. (2004). A longitudinal fMRI study: in recovering and then in clinically stable sub-cortical stroke patients. Neuroimage, 23(3), 827–39.Google Scholar
  26. van Kuijk, A. A., & Pasman, J. W., et al. (2009). Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair, 23(1), 45–51.Google Scholar
  27. Veerbeek, J. M., & Kwakkel, G., et al. (2011). Early prediction of outcome of activities of daily living after stroke: a systematic review. Stroke, 42(5), 1482–1488.Google Scholar
  28. Wade, D. T., & Skilbeck, C. E., et al. (1983). Predicting Barthel ADL score at 6 months after an acute stroke. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 64(1), 24–8.Google Scholar
  29. Wei, W., & Zhang, Z., et al. (2016). More severe extratemporal damages in mesial temporal lobe epilepsy with hippocampal sclerosis than that with other lesions: a multimodality MRI Study. Medicine (Baltimore), 95(10), e3020.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, J. T., & Hareendran, A., et al. (2002). Improving the assessment of outcomes in stroke: use of a structured interview to assign grades on the modified Rankin scale. Stroke, 33(9), 2243–2246.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Du
    • 1
  • Fang Yang
    • 1
  • Zhiqiang Zhang
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jingze Hu
    • 1
  • Qiang Xu
    • 2
  • Jianping Hu
    • 2
  • Fanyong Zeng
    • 2
  • Guangming Lu
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Xinfeng Liu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Neurology, Jinling HospitalNanjing University School of MedicineNanjingChina
  2. 2.Department of Medical Imaging, Jinling HospitalNanjing University School of MedicineNanjingChina
  3. 3.State Key Laboratory of Analytical Chemistry for Life ScienceNanjing UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations