Bleed Vs. Block: Who Can Expect Better Recovery?

 

       Survivors who have a hemorrhagic (bleed) stroke average better recovery than survivors who have an ischemic (block) stroke. But bleed strokes usually have more disability to begin with. In other words, “bleeds”  start out lower but end up higher. The difference has to do with the different ways these types of stroke affect neurons:

“Block” stroke: neurons die because blood flow is blocked. No blood, no O_2.   No O_2, neurons die.
  

“Bleed” stroke: much of the damage comes from the compression on the brain by the buildup of blood in the skull. Once the compression is resolved there is less overall neuronal damage.

Bottom line: The effect of efforts towards recovery can be expected to be less for ischemic vs. hemorrhagic stroke. Rehab strategies that work well for bleed stroke will typically have less rehab potential for survivors with a block stroke.

This is one of my problems with books about survivors who've had a bleed stroke.  Some of the  books give the impression that they a) had more will, b) are smarter, c) have come up with a new and special technique. Again, on average, they start out lower but end up higher. So the recovery process is scary and arduous, but ultimately more fruitful. And it is more fruitful because there is less brain damage. 

Of course, the prime example of this fudging of the facts is Jill Bolte-Taylor's book My Stroke of Insight.  She had a bleed stroke on the left side of the brain.  Have a look at this video. Does anyone see any deficit in either the right arm/hand or in her speech?

Almost 90% of all stroke are blocks, not bleeds.

Want the science-y perspective?

"If 2 patients at the beginning of rehabilitation had the same basal neurological severity, same basal functional disability, same age, same sex, and same OAI, hemorrhagic patients showed better neurological and functional prognosis compared with ischemic ones."

And to be clear: Bleed strokes are terrible. You have a greater chance of dying from a bleed than a block. And recovery from any stroke is to be celebrated. 

But beware of inflated expectations suggestions by survivors of a bleed stroke. What they suggest may work for them but it is clear: their recovery will usually be higher given the same amount of effort.

~

E=Recovery

Banking energy is essential to recovery. Muscle strengthening (even on the unaffected side) and cardio work, i.e. walking, recumbent steppers, upper-body ergometers) are essential to provide the underlying "banking" of energy. The banked energy is needed to provide the fuel needed to do the hard work of recovery. The average stroke survivor has half the amount of cardiovascular strength as age-matched "couch potatoes." But most ADLs (walking is what is usually measured) take twice as much energy. In other words, stroke survivors have half the energy to do twice the work.

The foundation of all recovery from stroke involves neuroplastic "rewiring" of the brain. And while the energy needed to drive neuroplastic change has not been measured, one thing is for sure-neuroplasticity takes a lot of energy. The buzz word in rehab research is intensity. But how can you do intensive without enough energy?

Up to 70 percent of stroke survivors suffer from severe fatigue. Many survivors consider fatigue the worst aspect of post- stroke life. Banking energy goes a long way toward fighting fatigue.

~

Meaningful: Driving Stroke Recovery

When practicing to relearn movement effort should be task-specific. That is, tasks or component parts of a task should be practiced.  Choose tasks that are very meaningful. The more meaningful the task, the more motivation available. The more motivated, the more effort will be brought to bear. The more effort exerted, the more neuroplastic (brain rewiring) change will be driven. 


What motivates you? Fear? Friends not dropping by because you can't play cards anymore? Clients not trusting you because you've had a stroke? Recovery is not supposed to be comfortable. A dash of desperation is necessary.

Stretching After Stroke

Address soft tissue shortening.

Until soft tissue shortening is addressed (i.e. muscle tightness), the chronic (post 3 month) survivor has no chance of functional recovery. You can do a ton of hard work but if the muscle length is not there, that's as far as you'll go. It's that simple. This is particularly true of the tendency toward the shortening of soft tissue in the elbow, wrist, finger flexors in the arm and hand. In the leg and foot the main concern is the calf muscle. This muscle often shortens because the calf often has spasticity. Spasticity keeps the foot pointed down in that position, if held long enough will shorten the muscle.

There is a tendency for patients with chronic stroke to limit their stretching of at-risk joints to a few times a day. I would suggest that, given no pathological or orthopedic reasons not to, stretching should be done often. (Always: check with you friendly neighborhood PT or OT!)

Any therapist who works with any patient population with spasticity should know the implications of Botox and intrathecal baclofen, the range of oral medications as well as splinting. The anti-spasticity qualities of these medications are beyond the scope of this article, but they are important in the treatment of spasticity. And therapists are often the clinicians who can redirect patients back to physiatrists and neurologists. These docs then can suggest appropriate meds.

Upon discharge, therapists should "read the riot act" to stroke survivors. Therapists should inform them of the dangers of soft tissue shortening, including decreased function, less chance for future rehabilitation, pain and contracture.

(Note: There is considerable debate about the effectiveness of stretching out spastic muscles. This debate is not among clinicians as much as waged within the world of rehabilitation research. However, even though the scientists are not yet fully convinced, there's reasons to stretch outside of retention of tissue length. For example, the number one cause of poststroke shoulder pain is not subluxation (shoulder separation due to weakness of the shoulder muscles). The number one cause: Adhesions that build up in the capsule the shoulder. What keeps these adhesions at bay? Stretching. Or at least "ranging." "Ranging" is a term that therapists use to mean not necessary to be stretching, but taking the joint through its full range of motion. Ranging is done passively, as his stretching. That is, stroke survivors limb is moved through its available painless range of motion, but some outside force does it. It might be clinician, a caregiver, or the survivor themselves ranging the joint.)

~

Stroke Recovery: One Myth, Two MDs

Assume no plateau.

Time and time again, the idea of a plateau in post-stroke recovery has been refuted, both in research and anecdotally. It is the responsibility of the therapist to let the patient know that the culmination of therapy this is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. The patient's rehabilitative efforts after discharge can be confusing, frustrating and not always entirely fruitful. But motivated patients can make gains if they are willing to try new ideas, adapt and research new techniques.

 Know the role of the physiatrist and neurologist.

I've asked physiatrists how often they suggest that their patients should schedule an appointment with them, once they've been discharged from therapies. Their answers tend to be all over the place. "If there is a change in function," or "If the patient is having an issue with meds," or "Once a year." But when a typical patient with stroke, who is perhaps five years post-stroke, is asked, "Who is your physiatrist?" the usual answer is, "I don't have any problems with my feet."

The fact is that patients with stroke often lose touch with their physiatrists because many don't see the need for a doctor who directed their acute rehabilitation. They know they've "plateaued"—so why would they need the "stroke doctor" (as physiatrists and neurologists are often called)? But there are good reasons to reintroduce yourself to your physiatrist. Only physiatrists and neurologists are trained to measure nuanced change, know about the latest applicable medications, and understand the true breadth of rehabilitative care as it relates to patients with stroke.

Stroke Survivors Are...

Athletes___

There are two populations of patients who usually recover from stroke faster than others (or, at least, have a great advantage): Athletes (incl. dance, yoga, martial arts, etc.) and musicians. 

There are three reasons for this...

Reason one: There may very well be hypertrophy of the motor portions of the brain in both athletes and musicians. We know that massed practice will reconfigure the brain, with new neurons recruited and new pathways developed. And which populations are, by definition, involved in massed practice? Athletes and musicians. 

Reason two: As anyone who is either an athlete or a musician knows, both these populations know how to train. And I don't mean just, "Yeah, I did my therapy today" kind of training. I mean the "I dream about therapy, wake up and plan my day around therapy and dedicate most of my time to therapy," kind of training. 

Reason three: Athletes and musicians are often extremely motivated to get back to their instrument or their sport.

Both athletes and musicians understand all the factors that are important to stroke rehab. They know how to practice with vigor and focus. They know the commitment of time and resources that such practice involves. And they know that if their practice routine changes, they will get different results.

Stroke survivors are true athletes. Lower level athletes playing a higher stakes game. But on the other hand, they have the most devoted fans in sport: Their loved ones. And their families and friends have every reason, both altruistic and self-serving, to coach, cajole, encourage, support and embolden their athlete toward success.

Repetitive Recovery and Rehabilitation

Modern clinical rehab research has confirmed what many rehabilitation clinicians have assumed to be true: Post-stroke motor recovery requires repetitive practice (RP). Many clinicians use RP as a tool to restore movement. But as is true with many core concepts in stroke recovery is also true with regard to RP. Namely, what rehab research reveals and what rehab clinicians use are two very different things. Bottom line: The fly in the ointment is the amount. Clinicians in rehab don't encourage enough repetitions.

The absolute minimum number of repetitions needed to drive cortical changes (brain rewiring) for a single joint movement is approximately 2,000. If it's a multiplanar, multi-joint movement, the numbers are in the tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of repetitions. Researchers in neuroscience talk about more than that; often the number of repetitions needed for quality movement is in the millions.

How many repetitions do clinicians in rehabilitation typically ask stroke survivors to perform per session? Studies in which clinicians are observed as they work with stroke survivors show that patients typically attempt approximately 50 repetitions in the average therapy session. A stroke survivor would need 40 sessions to get enough RP for a single joint.

I strongly advocate offloading much of the work to the person who owns the nervous system in question-the survivor. That is, to get enough RP to provide robust enough brain rewiring to promote quality movement, much of the work must be done when the survivor is not with the clinician. And this is a problem because many clinicians believe that if stroke survivors are encouraged to move without proper guidance, they'll use the stereotypical patterns available (called synergistic movement). If used enough, so the thinking goes, these movement patterns will be ingrained and the "incorrect" movement will never be unlearned. This perspective, reduced, sounds weird: "The more you move, the worse you'll get." It sounds weird because it erodes a foundational belief of the therapies: Exercise helps the brain and body heal.

It is true that repetitive practice of wrong movement will lead to more wrong movement. In athletes the idea of "bad practice leads to bad performance" is well known. This is why athletes strive to practice with perfect form. Stroke survivors are no different. Unless there is a precise evaluation of movement deficits, there's no way to tell what should be practiced. When it comes to movement, quality matters. And quality matters for many reasons, because bad movement:

• Takes more energy than good movement;

• Takes more time than good movement;

• Can lead to injuries;

• Can lead to a lack of enjoyment of a wide range of activities;

• Looks bad, which has social implications.

So how does a stroke survivor reverse "bad practice leads to that movement?" That is, how do you do "good practice" that leads to "good movement?"

My lab work has focused on stroke-specific outcome measures testing post-stroke movement. I used a laundry list of these outcome measures. 

They are often complicated and require special equipment. We also use movement analysis laboratories that collect thousands of bits of data to determine whether movement is increasing or decreasing in quality. Finally, we use technologies like functional magnetic resonance imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation to determine whether the part of the brain dedicated to movement is expanding.

But what of my earlier suggestion of offloading much of the work onto the survivor? Because it takes so many repetitions to drive robust change, they are to do much of the work. So stroke survivors must evaluate their own movement. And once they evaluate the movement, they must adjust according to the evaluation. For the stroke survivor trying to improve quality of movement, some of the simplest "data collection" works quite well.

• Using mirrors to provide real-time feedback can be helpful. Using a mirror at the end of a treadmill can provide insight into the quality of gait. 
• In the upper extremity, it is helpful to use the "good" side to remind yourself what "normal" looks like.
• Videotaping specific movements throughout the arc of recovery can be helpful as well. Video provides a chronological log of where you were and where you are now, and can suggest what to work on next.

It comes down to a lot of the right kind of practice. As Vince Lombardi put it, "Practice does not make perfect. Only perfect practice makes perfect."

A great sentiment but...

The question becomes, what to do next? An important question every time you ask it. Even if mistakes are made, even if the wrong choice is made, keep making decisions. Even if you are not absolutely OBSESSIONAL about recovery, forever dedicate a part of yourself to the question...  

What to do next? 

Whatever the answer, make it outside the comfort zone.* Or, to put it another way: 

"Intensity of practice after stroke: More is better."

*While remaining safe.

Stroke and Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) is something that's often touted to help stroke recovery. HBOT involves the breathing of pure oxygen while in a sealed chamber. The oxygen is  pressurized at 1-1/2 to 3 times normal atmospheric pressure.

HBOT is used medically for the effective treatment of

• decompression sickness (commonly known as "the bends")
• severe carbon monoxide poisoning
• certain kinds of wounds, injuries, and skin infections
• certain infections

Does it work in stroke? Bottom line: There is insufficient evidence to recommend its use. And it does come with risks.

It may work but the ducks get in the way...

The story of HBOT for brain injury including stroke is full of clinicians, characters and quacks. One of them is William Hammesfahr, a neurologist. You might recognize the name; in the famous Terri Schiavo case Hammesfah disagreed with almost every other MD, saying that Schiavo could recover from what had been described as a "irreversible persistent vegetative state." Hammesfahr claimed that he could "cure" Schiavo to "the point of being able to communicate." Hammesfahr suggested HBOT should be part of Schiavo's treatment.

The board of medicine in Florida in 2003 accused Hammesfahr of "...performing medical treatment below the standard of care, engaging in false advertising concerning his treatment of strokes, and exploiting a patient for financial gain."

Hammesfahr also claimed to be "nominated for a Nobel Prize."  Someone had recommended him for the prize, but that someone wasn't qualified to nominate for the prize. "Qualified Nominators" are a very small and select group of previous laureates and academicians primarily from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway.

Otherwise, I could nominate you, you could nominate me, and we could both claim to be Nobel Laureate nominees

The legacy of weirdness continues when it comes to hyperbaric treatment...

The mantle for HBOT seems to have been passed from Hammesfahr to the Neubauer hyperbaric neurologic center.  (It is worthwhile looking at all the credentials. The photos are interesting as well...

addendum 11.3.13, all links on that page now lead to a page that says "You have tried to access a link that does not have a page associated with it.". A great take on the clinic can be found here.  (Apparently, the director of the clinic holds no malpractice insurance. "Why?," you might ask. Read on!)

Still, it's not a question of personalities; the question is, does it work?

It may. Definitely more research needs to be done. It seems to work acutely in animal studies. In rats studies it seems as if there's a better survival rate as well as better outcomes if done within the first few days after stroke. This makes sense.  The brain is, during the first few days after stroke, trying to recover. Being hyper infused with oxygen may be a good thing.

And therein lies the rub. If you have a stroke survivor in the  HBOT sealed chamber during the first few days after stroke and there is an emergency you can't get to them. If you try to pull them out of the chamber immediately they get "the bends" described by Wikipedia thusly...

"Decompression sickness (DCS; also known as divers' disease, the bends or caisson disease) describes a condition arising from dissolved gases coming out of solution into bubbles inside the body on depressurization."

And bad things have been known to happen in the HBOT chambers. In at least some studies there is an increase in seizures. There've also been explosions and fires (remember this is compressed pure oxygen; highly flammable.) Here  is a case where a victim died, and another victim was critically injured in the HBOT chamber. The accident happened at the Neubauer Hyperbaric neurologic Center. 

Here is what I've gotten from my research into HBOT:

• A variety of reviews have concluded that was insufficient evidence to prove the effectiveness or ineffectiveness
• A 2005 systematic review of the evidence for HBOT in the treatment of stroke showed no benefit to the treatment
• A review of 12 randomized studies using HBOT with multiple sclerosis suggested that there is no clinically significant benefit from the administration of HBOT.

Bottom line: HBOT may work during the acute phase after stroke. However, a lot more research needs to be done and the safety issues need to be addressed before it can be recommended.

~~