Abstract
Background and Purpose
This study compared the effect of cyclic neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES), electromyography (EMG)-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation on motor impairment and activity limitations in patients with upper limb hemiplegia.
Methods
A multicenter, single-blind, multi-arm parallel-group study of non-hospitalized hemiplegic stroke survivors within 6 months of stroke. 122 subjects were randomized to receive either cyclic NMES, EMG triggered NMES, or sensory stimulation twice every weekday in 40-minute sessions, over an 8 week-period. Subjects were followed for 6 months after treatment concluded.
Results
There were significant increases in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (F(1,111)=92.6, p<0.001), Fugyl-Meyer Assessment Wrist and Hand (F(1,111)=66.7, p<0.001), and modified Arm Motor Ability Test (time effect, F(1,111)=91.0, p<0.001) for all three groups. There was not a significant difference in the improvement among groups in the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (F(2,384) = 0.2, p =0.83), Fugl-Meyer Assessment Wrist and Hand (F(2,384) = 0.4, p =0.70), or the modified Arm Motor Ability Test (F(2,379) = 1.2, p =0.31).
Conclusions
All groups exhibited significant improvement of impairment and functional limitation with electrical stimulation therapy applied within 6 months of stroke. Improvements were likely due to spontaneous recovery. There was not a difference based on the type of electrical stimulation that was administered.
Keywords: Stroke, Function, Recovery, Electrical Stimulation
Introduction
There is growing evidence that motor recovery after stroke is activity dependent. Studies have suggested that repetitive movement therapy mediated by surface (i.e., transcutaneous) neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) facilitates motor control in upper limb hemiparesis.[1–6] Cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation are commercially available surface NMES modalities that may be used as adjuncts to therapy offered by allied health professionals to improve function after stroke. The treatment methods for these types of NMES differ in many ways that may influence their efficacy in reducing impairment and functional limitation. Little data upon which to base decisions regarding which devices should be purchased or modalities to offer.
Theoretically, the different methods of NMES engage the stroke survivor in different ways which could potentially affect outcome. Cyclic NMES activates the paretic muscles according to preset timing and intensities to provide extension at the wrist and/or fingers.[7, 8] The participant is passive; no cognitive input or attempt to assist cyclic NMES is required from the participant. Electromyographically (EMG)-triggered NMES is similar to cyclic NMES except that a cognitive element is introduced by triggering the NMES with the participant’s own volitionally activated EMG signal.[6, 9, 10] Thus, the NMES provides wrist and/or finger extension “time-locked” to the cognitive intent to actively extend the wrist and open the hand. Sensory stimulation without motor stimulation provides a lesser amount of afferent input than NMES since there is no muscle activation or joint movement resulting from stimulation, although it may have some therapeutic benefit.[11–13] Thus, in this study, sensory stimulation serves as a conservative control group.
Clinicians, faced with a growing number of commercially available NMES devices and modalities, have little data on which to base decisions regarding which devices should be purchased or modalities to offer to patients. Very few, and only small studies have compared the efficacy of NMES modalities.[14, 15] This trial was undertaken to compare the efficacy of cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation on impairment and functional limitation in stroke patients with upper limb hemiparesis. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the largest clinical trial comparing EMG-triggered and cyclic NMES in the subacute stroke population. It was hypothesized that that the cognitive input related to EMG-triggered NMES would result in significantly larger impairment reductions than cyclic NMES, and that sensory stimulation would produce the smallest motor impairment reduction.
Methods
This was a multicenter, balanced randomization, single-blind, multi-arm parallel-group study conducted in the United States at 3 medical centers. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review boards at each location. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00142792).
Participants
Inclusion criteria were: 1) medically stable; 2) non-hospitalized adults within 6 months of stroke; 3) aged 21–89 years; 4) required to have intact skin on the hemiparetic arm; 5) adequate cognition to participate (follow 3-step commands, recall 2 of 3 items at 30 minutes; 6) full passive ROM of the wrist, thumb, index, and long finger metacarpophalangeal joints of the affected limb; 7) less than full strength of the affected limb; 8), a score less than 12 out of 14 points on the hand portion of the upper extremity section of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (FMA); 9) detectable, volitionally-activated EMG signals from the wrist or finger extensors (extensor carpi radialis (ECR) or extensor digitorum communis (EDC) muscles); 10) the ability to tolerate NMES for wrist and finger extension; and, 11) the ability to set-up and operate the assigned NMES device independently, or with assistance.
Exclusion criteria were: 1) insensate affected arm; 2) uncompensated hemineglect, as measured by testing for extinction on double simultaneous stimulation (visual or tactile) or by drawing a clock face; 3) history of cardiac arrhythmia with hemodynamic instability 4) premorbid upper motor neuron lesion affecting hemiparetic arm 5) uncontrolled seizure disorder; 6) metacarpophalangeal joint or wrist pain to palpation or with extension; 7) implanted stimulator (such as cardiac pacemaker); and, 8) pregnancy.
Randomization
Following consent, the nurse coordinator and the blinded assessor at each site determined eligibility using the above screening criteria. Participants who satisfied study criteria underwent baseline assessment prior to randomization. Once the candidate enrolled and completed baseline assessment, the treating therapist, who was not blinded, assigned participants to treatment groups via a computer generated random permuted blocked randomization sequence (in blocks of 6) for each of the sites.
Interventions
Participants were randomized to receive either cyclic NMES, EMG triggered NMES, or sensory stimulation (control) administered twice every weekday in 40-minute sessions, over an 8 week-period. The treatment occupational therapist ensured that enrolled participants were able to demonstrate correct use of the device. Participants took the device home to complete the 8-week treatment protocol. Adherence visits were at least once weekly, occurring either at the participants’ homes or following the prescribed outcome visits on site.
Cyclic NMES
Two 2-inch diameter surface electrodes attached to a commercially available stimulator (NeuroMove NM900, Zynex Medical, Lone Tree, CO) were placed over the motor points of the ECR and the EDC. When stimulation occurred, this configuration produced paretic wrist and finger extension. Stimulation intensity (pulse amplitude) was set to produce maximum finger and wrist extension without discomfort. Participants were instructed to “relax” during the treatment and not assist the NMES. Since simultaneous activation of the contralateral wrist and fingers may affect motor relearning,[10] participants were instructed to refrain from movement of the contralateral limb during treatment. Thus, the treatment provided muscle and joint proprioceptive feedback of the affected limb without a cognitive intent to extend the fingers and wrist.
Stimulation was delivered via a biphasic waveform with pulse duration of 300μsec. Pulse frequency was adjusted to participant comfort, but kept between a range of 20 and 40Hz. The duty cycle was initially set at 5 sec on, 20 sec off. The off time was decreased approximately every 3 days by 5 sec until the duty cycle was 5 sec on, 5 sec off. The internal memory in the stimulator was interrogated weekly to monitor adherence. Participants were also asked to maintain a diary documenting the treatment sessions.
EMG-Triggered NMES
Surface electrodes were placed in a manner identical to the Cyclic NMES group, with the goal of producing contraction of the ECR and EDC; however, stimulation was delivered only when the participant initiated wrist and or finger extension that generated an EMG signal from either muscle of sufficient magnitude to exceed a preset threshold of 10% of the maximum EMG signal during maximum contraction of the wrist and finger extensors. During the treatment, the participants were instructed to attempt to extend the wrist and fingers of the affected limb in response to an audio/visual cue issued from and displayed on the stimulator. Once the stimulation was successfully triggered, the participants were asked to relax and not assist the stimulation. Thus, the treatment provided muscle and joint proprioceptive feedback of the affected limb coupled with a cognitive intent to extend the fingers and wrist. The rationale to relax during stimulation was twofold: 1) to isolate the effect of cognitive input that is required for EMG-triggered NMES; and, 2) to prevent the potential interference of voluntary contraction on electrical stimulation that can reduce the force of muscle contraction.[16, 17]
The duty cycle, daily dose, and duration of treatment were identical to the Cyclic NMES group. Stimulation intensity and frequency were set in the same manner. Thus, the only variable that was manipulated was the type of stimulation, per the study purpose.
Sensory stimulation (control)
Surface electrodes were placed in a manner identical to the Cyclic and EMG triggered NMES groups; however, the stimulation intensity was set above sensory threshold but below motor threshold. Thus, the treatment provided cutaneous afferent feedback, but without muscle and joint proprioceptive feedback and without cognitive intent.
The duty cycle, daily dose and duration of treatment were identical to the Cyclic and EMG triggered NMES groups. Stimulation frequency was set at 30 Hz.
Outcomes
Outcomes assessments were completed at each site by a blinded occupational therapist at baseline, mid-treatment, end of treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after completion of treatment.
The primary outcome measure was the upper extremity section of the FMA. Volitional movement of the upper limb (shoulder, elbow, forearm, wrist, and hand) is examined in and out of synergies. Each item is graded on a 0 – 2 ordinal scale and summed to provide a maximum score of 66. A post-hoc outcome of the FMA limited to the wrist and hand subscales was undertaken as the interventions were limited to the wrist and hand, with a maximum score of 24.
A secondary outcome was the ability of a hemiparetic upper limb to execute specific activities and was assessed with the functional ability component of the Arm Motor Ability Test (AMAT.)[18] The time component was excluded due to a significant floor and ceiling effect with respect to FMA,[19] and the number of compound tasks was reduced to reduce redundancy. The modified AMAT (mAMAT) consisted of 9 compound tasks excluding those tasks reliant on ambulatory skills. The tasks were scored with a 0 – 5 ordinal scale, with higher numbers signifying greater function of the hemiparetic limb. The scores across the 9 tasks were averaged to produce a final score with a maximum of 5.
The phase of spontaneous neurological recovery is important to consider when evaluating outcomes of treatment intervention. Studies have observed that the fastest pace of recovery tends to occur immediately after the stroke, with a slower pace as time passes.[20–24] Furthermore, recovery tends to reach a plateau at approximately 12 weeks after stroke.[21, 23, 24] In this study, subjects were divided into those who were 6 weeks or less after stroke, and thus would receive half of the treatment intervention within the first twelve weeks, and those who were longer than 6 weeks from their stroke.
Concurrent Therapies
Many sub-acute stroke survivors exhibit multiple sequelae requiring additional rehabilitation therapy interventions; however, concurrent therapy can bias outcomes. But, limiting provision of concurrent therapies in a subacute population would be unethical. Thus, the total number of hours of physical and occupational therapy sessions were monitored during the entire study period. In addition, other interventions such as botulinum toxin injections, intrathecal baclofen, shoulder corticosteroid injections, use of a shoulder sling, and use of a resting hand splint were monitored throughout the study.
Data Analyses
Power
This study was powered to detect differences in upper extremity FMA scores of a minimum effect size of 0.8 at a significance level of 0.01, the smallest effect size difference anticipated between Cyclic NMES and Sensory Stimulation, based on prior studies.[7, 9] A minimum of 50 participants per group was required in order to detect differences between groups with a power of 90%. The sample sizes were sufficient to detect the lower estimate of 4.25 points for the minimum clinically important difference (MCID)[25] between the EMG-triggered NMES and each of the other groups at all follow up time points. A significance level of 0.01 in the power-analysis was taken since for each measurement occasion, three post-hoc tests are needed. In addition, in order to account for an anticipated dropout rate of 20%, the minimum number of participants required to enroll per group was increased to 63 for a total of 189 participants for the entire study.
Outcome Analyses
The effect of treatment group over time was analyzed using a linear mixed model for repeated measures for each outcome measure with SAS software, version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.) A random intercept for each participant with a first-order antedependent covariance structure were used since it is reasonable to assume that for each individual there is a greater correlation between assessments that are closer together in time and that variance might be different at different assessments. Preliminary statistical testing rejected the hypothesis of equality of slopes among the sites, thus a fixed effect for site was added to the model. Missing data were handled by a maximum likelihood algorithm under the assumption that the missingness was random. The analyses were conducted by the available-case, intention-to-treat method; that is, all data were included in the analysis and the data were analyzed with all subjects remaining in the treatment group in which they were initially randomized.
Post-hoc analyses to control for phase of spontaneous neurological recovery were completed. The linear mixed model as described above was analyzed with the addition of fixed effects for phase of recovery (within 6 weeks of stroke at baseline), the interaction with treatment assignment, the interaction with time, and the interaction with treatment assignment and time.
Post-hoc analyses to estimate the FMA, the FMA wrist and hand subscales, and the mAMAT outcomes at the end of treatment, and at 3 months and 6 months after the end of treatment were completed to improve interpretation of the results since the recruitment goal was not met. The same linear mixed model analyses as previously described were performed with six discrete time points (baseline, at mid-treatment, end of treatment, and at 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after completion of treatment). Least squares means point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each group were computed from the model in an intention to treat manner using all available data.
To characterize the magnitude of change over time the effect sizes of the cyclic and EMG triggered NMES groups compared to the sensory stimulation group were calculated. The mean difference scores were calculated by subtracting the mean estimated change from baseline to the EOT, 3 month, and 6 month follow-up assessments for the cyclic and EMG triggered NMES groups from the mean estimated change from baseline to follow-up for the sensory stimulation group. Predicted values from the mixed linear regression analysis with discrete time points generated the difference scores. The Cohen’s d treatment effect sizes were calculated by dividing the mean difference scores by the baseline standard deviation of the sensory stimulation group. Cohen’s d values of 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8 represent small, moderate, and large effect sizes, respectively. [26]
Between group comparisons for treatment adherence, diary completion, and concurrent therapies were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and a Chi-square test for dichotomous variables.
Results
Subject Demographics
Out of a total of 1,197 stroke survivors that were pre-screened for eligibility, 122 met study criteria, agreed to participate and were randomized (Figure 1). Time from stroke at enrollment ranged from 12 days to 6.0 months. 109 (89.3%) participants completed the treatment interventions as assigned, and 83 (68.0%) completed all outcomes assessments. The demographic characteristics were similar among the treatment groups (Table 1). The impairments did not consistently differ in such a way that a single group was consistently more severely affected than the others. One subject in the EMG-triggered NMES group delayed the 1, 3, and 6-month follow-up outcome assessments due to difficulty with transportation and scheduling which resulted in the final assessment being at 9 months. These data were included in the analysis.
Figure 1.
Participant flow diagram.
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics.
| Cyclic NMES | EMG-Triggered NMES | Sensory Stimulation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | 39 | 41 | 42 |
| Age, year (median,Q1 – Q3) | 55.0 (47.4 – 65.9) | 58.6 (48.9 – 67.5) | 55.8 (47.6 – 66.7) |
| Female (%) | 46.2 | 41.5 | 38.1 |
| Race (%) | |||
| White | 71.8 | 63.4 | 71.4 |
| Black | 25.6 | 34.2 | 21.4 |
| Hispanic | 2.6 | 2.4 | 0 |
| Asian | 0 | 0 | 4.8 |
| Other | 0 | 0 | 2.4 |
| Duration, mo (median, Q1 – Q3) | 2.0 (1.3 – 4.2) | 2.9 (1.5 – 4.7) | 3.2 (1.7 – 5.0) |
| Early Recovery (%)* | 44.7 | 30.0 | 26.2 |
| Stroke Demographics | |||
| Ischemic (%) | 76.9 | 75.6 | 88.1 |
| Right hemiparesis (%) | 53.9 | 51.2 | 47.6 |
| Dominant hemiparesis (%) | 33.3 | 33.3 | 33.3 |
| Apraxia (%) | 2.6 | 0 | 11.9 |
| Neglect (%) | 5.1 | 14.6 | 14.3 |
| Cognitive Deficit (%) | 23.1 | 17.1 | 16.7 |
| Aphasia (%) | 20.5 | 26.8 | 14.3 |
| Visual Deficit (%) | 15.4 | 22 | 21.4 |
| Sensory Deficit (%) | 12.8 | 9.8 | 4.8 |
| FMA Hand (median, Q1 – Q3) | 3.5 (2.0 – 7.0) | 4.0 (1.0 – 6.0) | 4.0 (1.0 – 6.0) |
| Severe Hemiplegia2 (%) | 29.0 | 22.5 | 31.0 |
6 weeks or fewer from stroke onset
Fugl-Myer upper extremity score 0–17 at baseline
Abbreviations: NMES – neuromuscular electrical stimulation; EMG-electromyographically; Q1 – Q3 – values at first and third quartiles representing the middle 50% of the data; FMA – Fugl-Meyer Assessment
Fugl-Meyer Assessment Outcomes
No differences were observed in magnitude of change in FMA score among treatment groups (time by group interaction effect, F(2,384) = 0.2, p =0.83), although there was a significant score increase with treatment (time effect, F(1,111)=92.6, p<0.001) (Figure 2). Cohen’s effect size values for EMG-triggered NMES (d = 0.03, −0.01, and 0.08) and Cyclic-NMES (d= −0.12, −0.08, and −0.09) at EOT, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, suggest low clinical significance in FMA. No differences were observed in magnitude of change in FMA wrist and hand subscales among treatment groups (time by group interaction effect, F(2,384) = 0.4, p =0.70), although there was a significant score increase with treatment (time effect, F(1,111)=66.7, p<0.001). Cohen’s effect size value for EMG-triggered NMES (d = −0.08, −0.02, and 0.20) and Cyclic-NMES (d= −0.07, −0.08, and −0.08) at EOT, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, suggest low clinical significance in FMA wrist and hand. The estimates of the FMA outcomes assessments, adjusted for site, are available in Table 2.
Figure 2.
Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Limb for each treatment group over the course of the study. The shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence interval of the group mean.
Table 2.
Outcomes Assessments
| Cyclic NMES | EMG-Triggered NMES | Sensory Stimulation | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 27.5 (23.4 – 31.6) | 29.8 (25.7 – 33.9) | 26.8 (22.9 – 30.6) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 7.8 (6.9 – 10.4) | 8.7 (6.9 – 10.4) | 7.7 (5.9 – 9.4) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 1.7 (1.4 – 2.0) | 2.0 (1.6 – 2.4) | 1.7 (1.3 – 2.0) |
| Mid-treatment | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 31.8 (27.6 – 36.1) | 32.6 (28.2 – 37.0) | 30.4 (26.4 – 34.4) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 9.9 (8.1 – 11.7) | 10.4 (8.5 – 12.3) | 9.5 (7.8 – 11.2) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 2.2 (1.9 – 2.6) | 2.3 (1.9 – 2.7) | 2.0 (1.6 – 2.3) |
| End of Treatment | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 34.6 (30.5 – 38.7) | 34.7 (30.0 – 39.5) | 33.6 (29.1 – 38.1) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 11.0 (9.2 – 12.9) | 10.9 (8.6 – 13.2) | 10.5 (8.6 – 12.4) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 2.4 (2.0 – 2.8) | 2.4 (2.0 – 2.9) | 2.1 (1.7 – 2.5) |
| 1 month | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 33.6 (31.1 – 39.6) | 36.3 (31.7 – 41.0) | 35.2 (30.4 – 39.9) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 11.7 (9.8 – 13.6) | 11.7 (9.6 – 13.8) | 11.4 (9.4 – 13.4) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 2.6 (2.2 – 3.0) | 2.5 (2.1 – 3.0) | 2.3 (2.0 – 2.7) |
| 3 Months | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 37.9 (33.6 – 42.1) | 39.3 (34.4 – 44.2) | 37.3 (32.8 – 41.8) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 12.3 (10.3 – 14.4) | 12.9 (10.5 – 15.2) | 12.3 (10.2 – 14.3) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 2.7 (2.3 – 3.1) | 2.8 (2.3 – 3.2) | 2.5 (2.1 – 2.9) |
| 6 Months | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | 39.3 (34.8 – 43.8) | 39.5 (34.7 – 44.3) | 37.6 (32.6 – 42.5) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 13.5 (11.4 – 15.5) | 12.8 (10.7 – 15.0) | 12.2 (10.0 – 14.5) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 2.9 (2.5 – 3.4) | 2.8 (2.3 – 3.2) | 2.7 (2.2 – 3.1) |
Outcomes assessments were adjusted for treatment site. Abbreviations: NMES – neuromuscular electrical stimulation; EMG- electromyographically; 95% CI- 95% Confidence Interval; FMA-ue - Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Extremity; FMA-wh – Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Wrist and Hand; AMAT- Arm Motor Ability Test.
Modified Arm Motor Ability Test Outcomes
No differences were observed in magnitude of change in mAMAT scores among treatment groups (time by group interaction effect, F(2,379) = 1.2, p =0.31), although there was a significant improvement with treatment (time effect, F(1,111)=91.0, p<0.001) (Figure 3). Cohen’s effect size value for EMG-triggered NMES (d = 0.22, 0.18, and 0.19) and Cyclic-NMES (d= 0.04, −0.02, and −0.18) at EOT, 3 months, and 6 months, respectively, suggest low clinical significance. The estimates of the mAMAT outcomes assessments, adjusted for site, are available in Table 2.
Figure 3.
Arm Mobility Activity Test for each treatment group over the course of the study. The shaded areas indicate the 95% confidence interval of the group mean.
Adherence and Provision of Concurrent Therapies
There was a significant difference in adherence to the prescribed stimulation dose when comparing the proportion of prescribed minutes completed each week among the groups (H=9.4, p=0.008, Table 4), with the adherence of the EMG-triggered NMES group being lower than that of the other two groups. There were no significant differences between groups in regards to the amount of exposure to concurrent therapies. In order to control for the difference in stimulation adherence, the models were analyzed with the addition of mean adherence for each individual over the treatment period added as a fixed effect. With the addition of adherence to the models there still was not a significant difference among treatment groups for either FMA (time by group interaction effect, F(2,366) = 0.4, p =0.66), or mAMAT (time by group interaction effect, F(2,367) = 1.4, p =0.25).
Table 4.
Treatment Adherence and Concurrent Therapies
| Cyclic NMES | EMG-Triggered NMES | Sensory Stimulation | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adherence, median % (interquartile range) | 96.4% (70.8 – 100) | 87.8% (60.0 – 100) | 98.8% (74.5 – 100) | 0.008 |
| Diary Completion, % | 90.0% | 89.1% | 90.8% | 0.8 |
| Botulinum Toxin Injection, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 0.3 |
| Intrathecal Baclofen, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
| Shoulder Corticosteroid Injection, n (%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | - |
| Shoulder Sling, n (%) | 2 (0.7%) | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0.7 |
| Hand Splint, n (%) | 2 (0.7%) | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.4%) | 0.5 |
| Physical Therapy, median hours, (interquartile range) | 19.0 (10.0 – 31.0) | 22.0 (11.0 – 32.0) | 20.0 (11.0 – 33.0) | 0.4 |
| Occupational Therapy, median hours, (interquartile range) | 23.0 (12.0 – 34.0) | 22.0 (14.0 – 31.0) | 21.0 (13.0 – 32.0) | 0.5 |
Abbreviations: NMES – neuromuscular electrical stimulation; EMG- electromyographically; MA- Fugl-Meyer Assessment; AMAT- Arm Motor Ability Test.
Discussion
This multisite, randomized, controlled trial compared the effect of cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation on paretic upper extremity impairment and activity limitations in stroke survivors with subacute upper limb hemiparesis. The expectation that, due to spontaneous recovery, all groups would exhibit score increases on motor impairment measures and functional ability relative to baseline[27] was supported by the data; however, the hypothesis that participants treated with the NMES would exhibit larger score increases compared to participants treated with sensory stimulation was not supported. Furthermore, the hypothesis that participants treated with EMG-triggered NMES would exhibit greater score increases on the FMA, which measures neurologic recovery within the context of the motor system[28], and mAMAT, which measures hand-dependent functional tasks[28], compared to participants treated with cyclic NMES was not supported. When considering the effect size of the outcomes, it is apparent that treatment with either NMES paradigm did not cause meaningful change in any of the outcomes measures. Analysis of the FMA wrist and hand subscales, which focused on movements that the NMES intervention groups practiced, also failed to detect a difference between groups. Adjusting for phase of spontaneous recovery[20–24] did not alter the results.
It has been proposed that improvement of motor function associated with repetitive movements is mediated by afferent input to the central nervous system.[29–32] Thus, motor stimulation, which provides cutaneous and proprioceptive afferent feedback, was hypothesized to be more effective in motor relearning than sensory stimulation alone, which is limited to cutaneous feedback. It is also believed that intention-driven movement, with close temporal association of motor intention (central neural activity) and stimulated motor response (peripheral neural activity) is important for electrical stimulation-based motor relearning therapies. It is not clear why, in this study, differences in motor impairment and function were not found to be associated with the different treatment paradigms. However, the lack of functional task practice may have contributed to the study results.
The results of this study are consistent with the results of smaller trials comparing EMG-triggered NMES and cyclic NMES. A RCT of 31 subjects with subacute stroke that compared a 3-week treatment of EMG-triggered NMES to cyclic NMES found that both were superior to sham stimulation, though without significant differences between the two treatments.[14] Another RCT of 22 subjects with subacute stroke that compared a 6-week treatment of EMG-triggered and cyclic NMES showed improvements in both groups without finding a difference between them.[15] That this study, which included a larger sample size (n=109) and a longer treatment duration (8 weeks), also failed to detect a difference between EMG-triggered and cyclic NMES treatment protocols provides the strongest evidence that one treatment method should not be chosen over the other.
It is possible that EMG-triggered NMES, as used in this study, did not incorporate an adequate level of cognitive input (i.e., motor intention) to improve motor relearning than the other modalities. Motor intention was required to trigger electrical stimulation that produced wrist and finger extension; however, participants were then asked to relax once the stimulation commenced. Relaxation during stimulated muscle contraction effectively unpaired the motor intention and peripheral neural activity, which might have reduced the effectiveness of the intervention and its contrast with cyclic NMES.[33] That is, EMG-triggered stimulation may not have created a close enough temporal association of motor intention and stimulated motor response.
There are limitations with this study that are relevant to interpretation of the results. First, the estimated sample size needed to reach 90% power to detect clinically meaningful differences within the groups was not met due to slow recruitment. The lower power creates the possibility that a type II error was made. Table 3 shows that, at the extremes of the 95% Confidence Intervals, the differences in the outcomes for FMA could exceed the lower estimate of the MCID. The MCIDs for the FMA wrist and hand and the mAMAT have not been established. Second, it is not clear if the improvements all three groups experienced are due to the treatments they received in this study or due to spontaneous recovery and whatever concomitant therapy they received. This study did not limit subjects who had intact corticomotor function, necessary for capacity for spontaneous recovery[34], or by type of stroke. As such, it is not possible to know if differences in efficacy between the treatment paradigms would have emerged with application of alternative subject selection criteria. Third, since sensory stimulation can reduce motor impairment[35], it was not a true placebo group. Therefore, it is possible that all three groups improved more than they would have if they had not received the interventions tested in this study. Nevertheless, what this study does make clear is that merely triggering NMES is not enough to improve upon the outcomes achieved with cyclic NMES in subacute patients. It is also possible that important impairments were not equally represented in subjects between treatment assignments. There were differences in proportions of subjects in the early phase of recovery, with severe hemiplegia, with compensated neglect, with sensory, cognitive, communicative, and visual impairments; however, the differences in impairments did not affect one group in particular. Finally, although the outcomes assessor was blinded, subjects and treatment therapists were not and thus bias is still possible.
Table 3.
Between Group Differences in Outcomes Assessments
| Cyclic vs. EMG-Triggered | EMG-Triggered vs. Sensory | Cyclic vs. Sensory | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −2.3 (−7.9 – 3.3) | 3.0 (−2.6 – 8.6) | 0.7 (−4.9 – 6.3) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | −0.9 (−3.2 – 1.5) | 1.0 (−1.4 – 3.5) | 0.2 (−2.3 – 2.6) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | −0.3 (−0.7 – 0.2) | 0.3 (−0.2 – 0.8) | 0.0 (−0.4 – 0.5) |
| Mid-treatment | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −0.8 (−6.8 – 5.2) | 2.2 (−3.6 – 8.0) | 1.4 (−4.3 – 7.2) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | −0.5 (−3.0 – 2.0) | 0.9 (−1.6 – 3.4) | 0.4 (−2.0 – 2.8) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | −0.1 (−0.6 – 0.5) | 0.3 (−0.2 – 0.9) | 0.3 (−0.3 – 0.8) |
| End of Treatment | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −0.1 (−6.1 – 5.9) | −2.9 (−9.3 – 3.4) | 1.0 (−4.9 – 7.0) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 0.1 (−2.7 – 2.9) | 0.4 (−2.5 – 3.3) | 0.5 (−2.0 – 3.1) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 0.0 (−0.6 – 0.5) | 0.3 (−0.2 – 0.9) | 0.3 (−0.2 – 0.8) |
| 1 month | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −1.0 (−7.0 – 5.1) | 1.2 (−5.3 – 7.6) | 0.2 (−6.1 – 6.5) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 0.0 (−2.9 – 2.7) | 0.3 (−2.5 – 3.2) | 0.3 (−2.4 – 3.0) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | − 0.1 (−0.5 – 0.6) | 0.2 (−0.4 – 0.7) | 0.2 (−0.3 – 0.8) |
| 3 Months | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −1.5 (−7.8 – 4.8) | 2.0 (−4.4 – 8.4) | 0.6 (−5.6 – 6.7) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | −0.5 (−3.6 – 2.5) | 0.6 (−2.5 – 3.7) | 0.1 (−2.8 – 2.9) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 0.0 (−0.6 – 0.6) | 0.3 (−0.3 – 0.9) | 0.2 (−0.3 – 0.8) |
| 6 Months | |||
| FMA-ue (95% CI) | −0.2 (−6.6 – 6.2) | 1.9(−4.9 – 8.6) | 1.7(−5.0 – 8.4) |
| FMA-wh (95% CI) | 0.6 (−2.3 – 3.5) | 0.6 (−2.5 – 3.7) | 1.2 (−1.8 – 4.3) |
| AMAT (95% CI) | 0.1 (−0.5 – 0.7) | 0.1 (−0.5 – 0.7) | 0.2 (−0.4 – 0.9) |
Outcomes assessments were adjusted for treatment site. Abbreviations: NMES – neuromuscular electrical stimulation; EMG- electromyographically; 95% CI- 95% Confidence Interval; FMA-ue - Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Upper Extremity; FMA-wh – Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Wrist and Hand; AMAT- Arm Motor Ability Test.
Conclusion
This multisite, randomized, controlled trial demonstrated equal, statistically significant, increases in upper extremity motor impairment in subacute stroke survivors with upper limb hemiparesis with an 8-week treatment with cyclic NMES, EMG-triggered NMES, and sensory stimulation. There was not a difference between groups based on the stimulation treatment paradigm and treatment effects were negligible. Merely triggering NMES with EMG signal is not enough to improve upon the outcomes achieved with non-triggered cyclic NMES or sensory stimulation. There was no evidence that time post stroke influenced response to treatment.
Acknowledgments
Sources of Funding
This study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD049777).
Footnotes
Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00142792 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00142792?term=NCT00142792&rank=1)
Disclosures: None
References
- 1.de Kroon JR, van der Lee JH, MJI, Lankhorst GJ. Therapeutic electrical stimulation to improve motor control and functional abilities of the upper extremity after stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(4):350–60. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr504oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Glanz M, Klawansky S, Stason W, Berkey C, Chalmers TC. Functional electrostimulation in poststroke rehabilitation: a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(6):549–53. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90293-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Shimodozono M, Noma T, Matsumoto S, Miyata R, Etoh S, Kawahira K. Repetitive facilitative exercise under continuous electrical stimulation for severe arm impairment after sub-acute stroke: a randomized controlled pilot study. Brain Inj. 2014;28(2):203–10. doi: 10.3109/02699052.2013.860472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Hsu SS, Hu MH, Wang YH, Yip PK, Chiu JW, Hsieh CL. Dose-response relation between neuromuscular electrical stimulation and upper-extremity function in patients with stroke. Stroke. 2010 Apr;41(4):821–4. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.574160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rosewilliam S, Malhotra S, Roffe C, Jones P, Pandyan AD. Can surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the wrist and hand combined with routine therapy facilitate recovery of arm function in patients with stroke? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012 Oct;93(10):1715–21. e1. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.05.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cauraugh J, Light K, Kim S, Thigpen M, Behrman A. Chronic motor dysfunction after stroke: recovering wrist and finger extension by electromyography-triggered neuromuscular stimulation. Stroke. 2000 Jun;31(6):1360–4. doi: 10.1161/01.str.31.6.1360. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Chae J, Bethoux F, Bohinc T, Dobos L, Davis T, Friedl A. Neuromuscular stimulation for upper extremity motor and functional recovery in acute hemiplegia. Stroke. 1998;29(5):975–9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.29.5.975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Powell J, Pandyan AD, Granat M, Cameron M, Stott DJ. Electrical stimulation of wrist extensors in poststroke hemiplegia. Stroke. 1999;30(7):1384–9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.30.7.1384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Francisco G, Chae J, Chawla H, Kirshblum S, Zorowitz R, Lewis G, et al. Electromyogram-triggered neuromuscular stimulation for improving the arm function of acute stroke survivors: a randomized pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998;79(5):570–5. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(98)90074-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Cauraugh JH, Kim S. Two coupled motor recovery protocols are better than one: Electroymogram-triggered neuromuscular electrical stimulation and bilateral movements. Stroke. 2002;33:1589–94. doi: 10.1161/01.str.0000016926.77114.a6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Dimitrijevic MM, Stokic DS, Wawro AW, Wun CC. Modification of motor control of wrist extension by mesh-glove electrical afferent stimulation in stroke patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(3):252–8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90107-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Peurala SH, Pitkanen K, Sivenius J, Tarkka IM. Cutaneous electrical stimulation may enhance sensorimotor recovery in chronic stroke. Clin Rehabil. 2002;16(7):709–16. doi: 10.1191/0269215502cr543oa. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Conforto AB, Ferreiro KN, Tomasi C, dos Santos RL, Moreira VL, Marie SK, et al. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on motor function after subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010 Mar-Apr;24(3):263–72. doi: 10.1177/1545968309349946. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Boyaci A, Topuz O, Alkan H, Ozgen M, Sarsan A, Yildiz N, et al. Comparison of the effectiveness of active and passive neuromuscular electrical stimulation of hemiplegic upper extremities: a randomized, controlled trial. Int J Rehabil Res. 2013 Dec;36(4):315–22. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0b013e328360e541. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.de Kroon JR, MJIJ Electrical stimulation of the upper extremity in stroke: cyclic versus EMG-triggered stimulation. Clin Rehabil. 2008 Aug;22(8):690–7. doi: 10.1177/0269215508088984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Crago PE, Makowski NS, Cole NM. Contributions to muscle force and EMG by combined neural excitation and electrical stimulation. J Neural Eng. 2014 Oct;11(5):056022. doi: 10.1088/1741-2560/11/5/056022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Makowski NS, Knutson JS, Chae J, Crago PE. Functional electrical stimulation to augment poststroke reach and hand opening in the presence of voluntary effort: a pilot study. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2014 Mar-Apr;28(3):241–9. doi: 10.1177/1545968313505913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kopp B, Kunkel A, Flor H, Platz T, Rose U, Mauritz KH, et al. The Arm Motor Ability Test: reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of an instrument for assessing disabilities in activities of daily living. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jun;78(6):615–20. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(97)90427-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Chae J, Yang G, Labatia I. Upper limb motor function in chronic hemiparesis: Concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability Test. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;82:1–8. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200301000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E. Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2004;22(3–5):281–99. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Twisk J. Impact of time on improvement of outcome after stroke. Stroke. 2006 Sep;37(9):2348–53. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000238594.91938.1e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, van der Grond J, Prevo AJ. Probability of regaining dexterity in the flaccid upper limb: impact of severity of paresis and time since onset in acute stroke. Stroke. 2003 Sep;34(9):2181–6. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000087172.16305.CD. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Horner RD, Landsman PB, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Similar motor recovery of upper and lower extremities after stroke. Stroke. 1994 Jun;25(6):1181–8. doi: 10.1161/01.str.25.6.1181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Duncan PW, Goldstein LB, Matchar D, Divine GW, Feussner J. Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements. Stroke. 1992 Aug;23(8):1084–9. doi: 10.1161/01.str.23.8.1084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Page SJ, Fulk GD, Boyne P. Clinically important differences for the upper-extremity Fugl-Meyer Scale in people with minimal to moderate impairment due to chronic stroke. Phys Ther. 2012 Jun;92(6):791–8. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20110009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Krakauer JW. Arm function after stroke: from physiology to recovery. Semin Neurol. 2005 Dec;25(4):384–95. doi: 10.1055/s-2005-923533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Chae J, Labatia I, Yang G. Upper limb motor function in hemiparesis: concurrent validity of the Arm Motor Ability test. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Jan;82(1):1–8. doi: 10.1097/00002060-200301000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Nudo RJ, Wise BM, SiFuentes F, Milliken GW. Neural substrates for the effects of rehabilitative training on motor recovery after ischemic infarct. Science. 1996;272(5269):1791–4. doi: 10.1126/science.272.5269.1791. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Butefisch C, Hummelsheim H, Denzla P, Mauritz K. Repetitive training of isolated movements improves the outcome of motor rehabilitation of the centrally paretic hand. J Neurol Sci. 1995;130:59–68. doi: 10.1016/0022-510x(95)00003-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Asanuma H, Pavlides C. Neurobiological basis of motor learning in mammals. Neuroreport. 1997 Mar 3;8(4):i–vi. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Smith GV, Alon G, Roys SR, Gullapalli RP. Functional MRI determination of a dose-response relationship to lower extremity neuromuscular electrical stimulation in healthy subjects. Exp Brain Res. 2003 May;150(1):33–9. doi: 10.1007/s00221-003-1405-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Khaslavskaia S, Sinkjaer T. Motor cortex excitability following repetitive electrical stimulation of the common peroneal nerve depends on the voluntary drive. Exp Brain Res. 2005 May;162(4):497–502. doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2153-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Byblow WD, Stinear CM, Barber PA, Petoe MA, Ackerley SJ. Proportional recovery after stroke depends on corticomotor integrity. Ann Neurol. 2015 Dec;78(6):848–59. doi: 10.1002/ana.24472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Conforto AB, Cohen LG, dos Santos RL, Scaff M, Marie SK. Effects of somatosensory stimulation on motor function in chronic cortico-subcortical strokes. J Neurol. 2007 Mar;254(3):333–9. doi: 10.1007/s00415-006-0364-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]