Ann Rehabil Med.  2015 Aug;39(4):553-559. 10.5535/arm.2015.39.4.553.

Predictability of Motor Outcome According to the Time of Motor Evoked Potentials From the Onset of Stroke in Patients With Putaminal Hemorrhage

• Kwon YM
• Jang SH
• Lee JW

• KMID: 2148225
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2015.39.4.553

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To determine the predictability of motor evoked potentials (MEP) in patients with putaminal hemorrhage (PH) according to the time of MEP from the onset of stroke.
METHODS
Sixty consecutive patients with PH from January 2006 to November 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Motor function of affected extremities was measured at onset time and at six months after the onset. Patients were classified into two groups according to the time of MEP from the onset of stroke: early MEP group (within 15 days from onset) and late MEP group (16-30 days from onset). Patients were also classified into two groups according to the presence of MEP on the affected abductor pollicis brevis (APB): MEP (+) group-patients (showing MEP in the affected APB) and MEP (-) group-patients (no MEP in the affected APB). Motor outcome was compared between the two early and late MEP groups or between the presence and absence of MEP in the affected APB groups.
RESULTS
For patients with MEP (+), a larger portion in the late MEP group showed good prognosis compared to the early MEP group (late MEP, 94.4%; early MEP, 80%). In contrast, in patients with MEP (-), a larger portion of patients in the late MEP group showed bad prognosis compared to the early MEP group (late MEP, 80%; early MEP, 71.4%). No significant improvement of MI between MEP (+) and MEP (-) was observed when MEP was performed early or late.
CONCLUSION
Our results revealed that the predictability of motor outcome might be better if MEP is performed late compared to that when MEP is performed early in patients with PH.

Keyword

Transcranial magnetic stimulation; Stroke; Recovery of function; Putaminal hemorrhage; Motor evoked potentials

MeSH Terms

Evoked Potentials, Motor*
Extremities
Humans
Hydrogen-Ion Concentration
Prognosis
Putaminal Hemorrhage*
Recovery of Function
Retrospective Studies
Stroke*
Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Reference

1. Hendricks HT, van Limbeek J, Geurts AC, Zwarts MJ. Motor recovery after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 83:1629–1637. PMID: 12422337.

2. Afifi AK, Bergman RA. Functional neuroanatomy: text and atlas. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill;2005. p. 59–60.

3. Jang SH. The corticospinal tract from the viewpoint of brain rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med. 2014; 46:193–199. PMID: 24531325.

4. Davidoff RA. The pyramidal tract. Neurology. 1990; 40:332–339. PMID: 2405296.

5. Jang SH. The role of the corticospinal tract in motor recovery in patients with a stroke: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2009; 24:285–290. PMID: 19458437.

6. York DH. Review of descending motor pathways involved with transcranial stimulation. Neurosurgery. 1987; 20:70–73. PMID: 3543726.

7. DeVetten G, Coutts SB, Hill MD, Goyal M, Eesa M, O'Brien B, et al. Acute corticospinal tract Wallerian degeneration is associated with stroke outcome. Stroke. 2010; 41:751–756. PMID: 20203322.

8. Bembenek JP, Kurczych K, Karli Nski M, Czlonkowska A. The prognostic value of motor-evoked potentials in motor recovery and functional outcome after stroke: a systematic review of the literature. Funct Neurol. 2012; 27:79–84. PMID: 23158578.

9. van Kuijk AA, Pasman JW, Hendricks HT, Zwarts MJ, Geurts AC. Predicting hand motor recovery in severe stroke: the role of motor evoked potentials in relation to early clinical assessment. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2009; 23:45–51. PMID: 18794218.

10. Jang SH. Prediction of motor outcome for hemiparetic stroke patients using diffusion tensor imaging: a review. NeuroRehabilitation. 2010; 27:367–372. PMID: 21160127.

11. Barker AT, Jalinous R, Freeston IL. Non-invasive magnetic stimulation of human motor cortex. Lancet. 1985; 1:1106–1107. PMID: 2860322.

12. Talelli P, Greenwood RJ, Rothwell JC. Arm function after stroke: neurophysiological correlates and recovery mechanisms assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Clin Neurophysiol. 2006; 117:1641–1659. PMID: 16595189.

13. Catano A, Houa M, Caroyer JM, Ducarne H, Noel P. Magnetic transcranial stimulation in acute stroke: early excitation threshold and functional prognosis. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1996; 101:233–239. PMID: 8647036.

14. Pizzi A, Carrai R, Falsini C, Martini M, Verdesca S, Grippo A. Prognostic value of motor evoked potentials in motor function recovery of upper limb after stroke. J Rehabil Med. 2009; 41:654–660. PMID: 19565160.

15. Rapisarda G, Bastings E, de Noordhout AM, Pennisi G, Delwaide PJ. Can motor recovery in stroke patients be predicted by early transcranial magnetic stimulation? Stroke. 1996; 27:2191–2196. PMID: 8969779.

16. Timmerhuis TP, Hageman G, Oosterloo SJ, Rozeboom AR. The prognostic value of cortical magnetic stimulation in acute middle cerebral artery infarction compared to other parameters. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 1996; 98:231–236. PMID: 8884095.

17. Vang C, Dunbabin D, Kilpatrick D. Correlation between functional and electrophysiological recovery in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke. 1999; 30:2126–2130. PMID: 10512917.

18. Butler JA. How comparable are tests of apraxia? Clin Rehabil. 2002; 16:389–398. PMID: 12061473.

19. Demeurisse G, Demol O, Robaye E. Motor evaluation in vascular hemiplegia. Eur Neurol. 1980; 19:382–389. PMID: 7439211.

20. Kwon YH, Jeoung YJ, Lee J, Son SM, Kim S, Kim C, et al. Predictability of motor outcome according to the time of diffusion tensor imaging in patients with cerebral infarct. Neuroradiology. 2012; 54:691–697. PMID: 22015644.

21. Kothari RU, Brott T, Broderick JP, Barsan WG, Sauerbeck LR, Zuccarello M, et al. The ABCs of measuring intracerebral hemorrhage volumes. Stroke. 1996; 27:1304–1305. PMID: 8711791.

22. Inaji M, Tomita H, Tone O, Tamaki M, Suzuki R, Ohno K. Chronological changes of perihematomal edema of human intracerebral hematoma. Acta Neurochir Suppl. 2003; 86:445–448. PMID: 14753483.

23. Jang SH, Byun WM, Han BS, Park HJ, Bai D, Ahn YH, et al. Recovery of a partially damaged corticospinal tract in a patient with intracerebral hemorrhage: a diffusion tensor image study. Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2006; 24:25–29. PMID: 16518025.

24. Yang DS, Kim DS, Kim YH, Jang SH. Demonstration of recovery of a severely damaged corticospinal tract: a diffusion tensor tractography and transcranial magnetic stimulation follow-up study. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008; 32:418–420. PMID: 18520549.

25. Furlan M, Marchal G, Viader F, Derlon JM, Baron JC. Spontaneous neurological recovery after stroke and the fate of the ischemic penumbra. Ann Neurol. 1996; 40:216–226. PMID: 8773603.

26. Witte OW. Lesion-induced plasticity as a potential mechanism for recovery and rehabilitative training. Curr Opin Neurol. 1998; 11:655–662. PMID: 9870133.

27. Cramer SC. Repairing the human brain after stroke: I. Mechanisms of spontaneous recovery. Ann Neurol. 2008; 63:272–287. PMID: 18383072.

28. Arac N, Sagduyu A, Binai S, Ertekin C. Prognostic value of transcranial magnetic stimulation in acute stroke. Stroke. 1994; 25:2183–2186. PMID: 7974543.