Faculty of Health, Engineering and Science, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA, Australia; Clinical Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Rehabilitation, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014 Mar-Apr;49(2):149-61. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12074.
Very early aphasia rehabilitation studies have shown mixed results. Differences in therapy intensity and therapy type contribute significantly to the equivocal results.
To compare a standardized, prescribed very early aphasia therapy regimen with a historical usual care control group at therapy completion (4-5 weeks post-stroke) and again at follow-up (6 months).
METHODS & PROCEDURES: This study compared two cohorts from successive studies conducted in four Australian acute/sub-acute hospitals. The studies had near identical recruitment, blinded assessment and data-collection protocols. The Very Early Rehabilitation (VER) cohort (N = 20) had mild-severe aphasia and received up to 20 1-h sessions of impairment-based aphasia therapy, up to 5 weeks. The control cohort (n = 27) also had mild-severe aphasia and received usual care (UC) therapy for up to 4 weeks post-stroke. The primary outcome measure was the Aphasia Quotient (AQ) and a measure of communicative efficiency (DA) at therapy completion. Outcomes were measured at baseline, therapy completion and 6 months post-stroke and were compared using Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) models.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS: After controlling for initial aphasia and stroke disability, the GEE models demonstrated that at the primary end-point participants receiving VER achieved 18% greater recovery on the AQ and 1.5% higher DA scores than those in the control cohort. At 6 months, the VER participants maintained a 16% advantage in recovery on the AQ and 0.6% more on DA scores over the control cohort participants.
CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: A prescribed, impairment-based aphasia therapy regimen, provided daily in very early post-stroke recovery, resulted in significantly greater communication gains in people with mild-severe aphasia at completion of therapy and at 6 months, when compared with a historical control cohort. Further research is required to demonstrate large-scale and long-term efficacy.
早期失语症康复研究结果喜忧参半。治疗强度和类型的差异是导致结果不确定的主要原因。
在治疗结束(中风后 4-5 周)和随访(6 个月)时,比较标准化、规定的早期失语症治疗方案与历史常规护理对照组的结果。
本研究比较了在澳大利亚四家急性/亚急性医院进行的两项连续研究的两个队列。这些研究具有近乎相同的招募、盲法评估和数据收集方案。非常早期康复(VER)队列(N = 20)有轻度至重度失语症,接受了多达 20 次 1 小时的基于损伤的失语症治疗,最多 5 周。对照组(n = 27)也有轻度至重度失语症,在中风后最多 4 周内接受常规护理(UC)治疗。主要结局测量指标是失语症商数(AQ)和交流效率测量指标(DA)。在基线、治疗结束和中风后 6 个月进行评估,并使用广义估计方程(GEE)模型进行比较。
在控制初始失语症和中风残疾后,GEE 模型表明,在主要终点时,接受 VER 的参与者在 AQ 上的恢复程度比对照组高出 18%,在 DA 上的得分高出 1.5%。在 6 个月时,VER 组在 AQ 上的恢复率比对照组高出 16%,在 DA 上的得分高出 0.6%。
在中风后早期康复中,每天提供规定的、基于损伤的失语症治疗方案,与历史对照组相比,在治疗结束时和 6 个月时,患有轻度至重度失语症的患者在沟通方面的获益显著更大。需要进一步的研究来证明大规模和长期的疗效。