Objective: To identify prognostic factors associated with functional outcome at 13 months in a sample of stroke rehabilitation patients. Specifically, we hypothesized that cognitive functioning early after stroke would predict long-term functional outcome independently of other factors. Methods: 163 stroke rehabilitation patients underwent a structured neuropsychological examination 2–3 weeks after hospital admittance, and their functional status was subsequently evaluated 13 months later with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) as outcome measure. Three predictive models were built using linear regression analyses: a biological model (sociodemographics, apolipoprotein E genotype, prestroke vascular factors, lesion characteristics and neurological stroke-related impairment); a functional model (pre- and early post-stroke cognitive functioning, personal and instrumental activities of daily living, ADL, and depressive symptoms), and a combined model (including significant variables, with p value <0.05, from the biological and functional models). Results: A combined model of 4 variables best predicted long-term functional outcome with explained variance of 49%: neurological impairment (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale; β = 0.402, p < 0.001), age (β = 0.233, p = 0.001), post-stroke cognitive functioning (Repeatable Battery of Neuropsychological Status, RBANS; β = –0.248, p = 0.001) and prestroke personal ADL (Barthel Index; β = –0.217, p = 0.002). Further linear regression analyses of which RBANS indexes and subtests best predicted long-term functional outcome showed that Coding (β = –0.484, p < 0.001) and Figure Copy (β = –0.233, p = 0.002) raw scores at baseline explained 42% of the variance in mRS scores at follow-up. Conclusions: Early post-stroke cognitive functioning as measured by the RBANS is a significant and independent predictor of long-term functional post-stroke outcome.

Keywords:
Cognition, Functional outcome, Stroke
1.
Barker-Collo S, Feigin V: The impact of neuropsychological deficits on functional stroke outcomes. Neuropsychol Rev 2006;16:53–64.
2.
Bonita R, Solomon N, Broad JB: Prevalence of stroke and stroke-related disability. Estimates from the Auckland stroke studies. Stroke 1997;28:1898–1902.
3.
Demchuk AM, Tanne D, Hill MD, Kasner SE, Hanson S, Grond M, Levine SR: Predictors of good outcome after intravenous tPA for acute ischemic stroke. Neurology 2001;57:474–480.
4.
Counsell C, Dennis M: Systematic review of prognostic models in patients with acute stroke. Cerebrovasc Dis 2001;12:159–170.
5.
Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Kollen BJ, Lankhorst GJ: Predicting disability in stroke – a critical review of the literature. Age Ageing 1996;25:479–489.
6.
Eriksson M, Norrving B, Terent A, Stegmayr B: Functional outcome 3 months after stroke predicts long-term survival. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008;25:423–429.
7.
Demchuk AM, Buchan AM: Predictors of stroke outcome. Neurol Clin 2000;18:455–473.
8.
Jongbloed L: Prediction of function after stroke: a critical review. Stroke 1986;17:765–776.
9.
Nys GM, van Zandvoort MJ, de Kort PL, van der Worp HB, Jansen BP, Algra A, de Haan EH, Kappelle LJ: The prognostic value of domain-specific cognitive abilities in acute first-ever stroke. Neurology 2005;64:821–827.
10.
Paolucci S, Antonucci G, Pratesi L, Traballesi M, Lubich S, Grasso MG: Functional outcome in stroke inpatient rehabilitation: predicting no, low and high response patients. Cerebrovasc Dis 1998;8:228–234.
11.
Paolucci S, Antonucci G, Gialloreti LE, Traballesi M, Lubich S, Pratesi L, Palombi L: Predicting stroke inpatient rehabilitation outcome: the prominent role of neuropsychological disorders. Eur Neurol 1996;36:385–390.
12.
Robertson IH, Ridgeway V, Greenfield E, Parr A: Motor recovery after stroke depends on intact sustained attention: a 2-year follow-up study. Neuropsychology 1997;11:290–295.
13.
Jehkonen M, Laihosalo M, Kettunen JE: Impact of neglect on functional outcome after stroke: a review of methodological issues and recent research findings. Restor Neurol Neurosci 2006;24:209–215.
14.
Jehkonen M, Laihosalo M, Kettunen J: Anosognosia after stroke: assessment, occurrence, subtypes and impact on functional outcome reviewed. Acta Neurol Scand 2006;114:293–306.
15.
Sundet K, Finset A, Reinvang I: Neuropsychological predictors in stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1988;10:363–379.
16.
Gialanella B, Monguzzi V, Santoro R, Rocchi S: Functional recovery after hemiplegia in patients with neglect: the rehabilitative role of anosognosia. Stroke 2005;36:2687–2690.
17.
Patel MD, Coshall C, Rudd AG, Wolfe CD: Cognitive impairment after stroke: clinical determinants and its associations with long-term stroke outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:700–706.
18.
Van Zandvoort MJ, Kessels RP, Nys GM, de Haan EH, Kappelle LJ: Early neuropsychological evaluation in patients with ischaemic stroke provides valid information. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2005;107:385–392.
19.
Larson EB, Kirschner K, Bode RK, Heinemann AW, Clorfene J, Goodman R: Brief cognitive assessment and prediction of functional outcome in stroke. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003;9:10–21.
20.
Tatemichi TK, Desmond DW, Stern Y, Paik M, Sano M, Bagiella E: Cognitive impairment after stroke: frequency, patterns, and relationship to functional abilities. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1994;57:202–207.
21.
Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J: Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–607.
22.
Banks JL, Marotta CA: Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale – implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke 2007;38:1091–1096.
23.
Quinn TJ, Dawson J, Walters MR, Lees KR: Exploring the reliability of the modified Rankin scale. Stroke 2009;40:762–766.
24.
Bath PM, Gray LJ, Collier T, Pocock S, Carpenter J: Can we improve the statistical analysis of stroke trials? Statistical reanalysis of functional outcomes in stroke trials. Stroke 2007;38:1911–1915.
25.
Goldstein LB, Bertels C, Davis JN: Interrater reliability of the NIH stroke scale. Arch Neurol 1989;46:660–662.
26.
Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C: Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 1991;337:1521–1526.
27.
Wagle J, Farner L, Flekkoy K, Wyller TB, Sandvik L, Eiklid KL, Fure B, Stensrod B, Engedal K: Association between ApoE epsilon4 and cognitive impairment after stroke. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2009;27:525–533.
28.
Jorm AF: The Informant Questionnaire on cognitive decline in the elderly (IQCODE): a review. Int Psychogeriatr 2004;16:275–293.
29.
Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN: The Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS): preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 1998;20:310–319.
30.
Larson E, Kirschner K, Bode R, Heinemann A, Goodman R: Construct and predictive validity of the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status in the evaluation of stroke patients. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 2005;27:16–32.
31.
Wilde MC: The validity of the repeatable battery of neuropsychological status in acute stroke. Clin Neuropsychol 2006;20:702–715.
32.
Duff K, Patton D, Schoenberg MR, Mold J, Scott JG, Adams RL: Age- and education-corrected independent normative data for the RBANS in a community dwelling elderly sample. Clin Neuropsychol 2003;17:351–366.
33.
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61–65.
34.
Schuling J, de Haan R, Limburg M, Groenier KH: The Frenchay Activities Index: assessment of functional status in stroke patients. Stroke 1993;24:1173–1177.
35.
Montgomery SA, Asberg M: A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979;134:382–389.
36.
Appelros P, Nydevik I, Viitanen M: Poor outcome after first-ever stroke: predictors for death, dependency, and recurrent stroke within the first year. Stroke 2003;34:122–126.
37.
Weisscher N, Vermeulen M, Roos YB, de Haan RJ: What should be defined as good outcome in stroke trials: a modified Rankin score of 0–1 or 0–2? J Neurol 2008;255:867–874.
38.
Urwyler SA, Schuetz P, Fluri F, Morgenthaler NG, Zweifel C, Bergmann A, Bingisser R, Kappos L, Steck A, Engelter S, Muller B, Christ-Crain M, Katan M: Prognostic value of copeptin: one-year outcome in patients with acute stroke. Stroke 2010;41:1564–1567.
39.
Johnston KC, Connors AF Jr, Wagner DP, Haley EC Jr: Predicting outcome in ischemic stroke: external validation of predictive risk models. Stroke 2003;34:200–202.
40.
Adams HP Jr, Davis PH, Leira EC, Chang KC, Bendixen BH, Clarke WR, Woolson RF, Hansen MD: Baseline NIH Stroke Scale score strongly predicts outcome after stroke: a report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Neurology 1999;53:126–131.
41.
Johnston KC, Connors AF Jr, Wagner DP, Knaus WA, Wang X, Haley EC Jr: A predictive risk model for outcomes of ischemic stroke. Stroke 2000;31:448–455.
42.
Weimar C, Konig IR, Kraywinkel K, Ziegler A, Diener HC: Age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score within 6 h after onset are accurate predictors of outcome after cerebral ischemia: development and external validation of prognostic models. Stroke 2004;35:158–162.
43.
Schlegel D, Kolb SJ, Luciano JM, Tovar JM, Cucchiara BL, Liebeskind DS, Kasner SE: Utility of the NIH Stroke Scale as a predictor of hospital disposition. Stroke 2003;34:134–137.
44.
Bagg S, Pombo AP, Hopman W: Effect of age on functional outcomes after stroke rehabilitation. Stroke 2002;33:179–185.
45.
Terryberry-Spohr L, Gordon K, List Kalnins T: Prediction of functional outcomes in the acute rehabilitation setting using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2000;15:663–664.
46.
Lezak MD: Neuropsychological Assessment, ed 4. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004.
47.
Strauss E, Sherman EMS, Spreen O: A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms, and Commentary, ed 3. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006.
48.
Posner MI, Petersen SE: The attention system of the human brain. Annu Rev Neurosci 1990;13:25–42.
49.
Liu T, Slotnick SD, Serences JT, Yantis S: Cortical mechanisms of feature-based attentional control. Cereb Cortex 2003;13:1334–1343.
50.
Egner T, Monti JM, Trittschuh EH, Wieneke CA, Hirsch J, Mesulam MM: Neural integration of top-down spatial and feature-based information in visual search. J Neurosci 2008;28:6141–6151.
51.
Nys GM, van Zandvoort MJ, de Kort PL, Jansen BP, Kappelle LJ, de Haan EH: Restrictions of the Mini-Mental State Examination in acute stroke. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2005;20:623–629.
52.
Kasner SE: Clinical interpretation and use of stroke scales. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:603–612.
53.
Løberg EM, Langeland M, Jørgensen HA: Reliability and validity of a Norwegian translation of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status in patients with psychosis (poster). 10-year Anniversary of the Norwegian Neuropsychological Association, Oslo, August 2006.
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
2011
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.