Characterization and individual-level prediction of cognitive state in the first year after 'mild' stroke.

Juan Pablo Saa, Tamara Tse, Gerald Choon-Huat Koh, Philip Yap, Carolyn M Baum, David E Uribe-Rivera, Saras M Windecker, Henry Ma, Stephen M Davis, Geoffrey A Donnan, Leeanne M Carey
Author Information
  1. Juan Pablo Saa: Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, College of Science Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. ORCID
  2. Tamara Tse: Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, College of Science Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
  3. Gerald Choon-Huat Koh: Saw-Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. ORCID
  4. Philip Yap: Geriatric Medicine, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. ORCID
  5. Carolyn M Baum: School of Public Health, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, MO, United States of America.
  6. David E Uribe-Rivera: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of Australia, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
  7. Saras M Windecker: Telethon Kids institute, Perth, Australia.
  8. Henry Ma: Department of Medicine, Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Australia.
  9. Stephen M Davis: Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  10. Geoffrey A Donnan: Departments of Medicine and Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
  11. Leeanne M Carey: Occupational Therapy, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, College of Science Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Mild stroke affects more than half the stroke population, yet there is limited evidence characterizing cognition over time in this population, especially with predictive approaches applicable at the individual-level. We aimed to identify patterns of recovery and the best combination of demographic, clinical, and lifestyle factors predicting individual-level cognitive state at 3- and 12-months after mild stroke.
METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was administered at 3-7 days, 3- and 12-months post-stroke. Raw changes in MoCA and impairment rates (defined as MoCA<24 points) were compared between assessment time-points. Trajectory clusters were identified using variations of ≥1 point in MoCA scores. To further compare clusters, additional assessments administered at 3- and 12-months were included. Gamma and Quantile mixed-effects regression were used to predict individual MoCA scores over time, using baseline clinical and demographic variables. Model predictions were fitted for each stroke survivor and evaluated using model cross-validation to identify the overall best predictors of cognitive recovery.
RESULTS: Participants' (n = 119) MoCA scores improved from baseline to 3-months (p<0.001); and decreased from 3- to 12-months post-stroke (p = 0.010). Cognitive impairment rates decreased significantly from baseline to 3-months (p<0.001), but not between 3- and 12-months (p = 0.168). Nine distinct trajectory clusters were identified. Clinical characteristics between clusters at each time-point varied in cognitive outcomes but not in clinical and/or activity participation outcomes. Cognitive performance at 3- and 12-months was best predicted by younger age, higher physical activity levels, and left-hemisphere lesion side.
CONCLUSION: More than half of mild-stroke survivors are at risk of cognitive decline one year after stroke, even when preceded by a significantly improving pattern in the first 3-months of recovery. Physical activity was the only modifiable factor independently associated with cognitive recovery. Individual-level prediction methods may inform the timing and personalized application of future interventions to maximize cognitive recovery post-stroke.

References

  1. Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Jan 06;23(2): [PMID: 35054785]
  2. Int J Stroke. 2015 Jun;10(4):636-44 [PMID: 24206623]
  3. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2020 Sep;34(9):844-855 [PMID: 32940147]
  4. Clin Rehabil. 2015 Jul;29(7):694-704 [PMID: 25381346]
  5. Acta Neurol Scand. 2013 Aug;128(2):122-9 [PMID: 23425001]
  6. Stroke. 2012 Feb;43(2):464-9 [PMID: 22156700]
  7. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Jul;101(7):1243-1259 [PMID: 32001257]
  8. Clin Rehabil. 2002 Aug;16(5):493-505 [PMID: 12194620]
  9. Stroke. 2013 Nov;44(11):3211-3 [PMID: 24003048]
  10. BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1080 [PMID: 16675816]
  11. Stroke. 2017 Aug;48(8):2113-2120 [PMID: 28626050]
  12. Front Neurol. 2017 Jul 28;8:365 [PMID: 28804475]
  13. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98 [PMID: 1202204]
  14. Br J Psychiatry. 2002 May;180:461-4 [PMID: 11983645]
  15. N Engl J Med. 2019 May 9;380(19):1795-1803 [PMID: 31067369]
  16. J Neurol. 2019 May;266(5):1250-1259 [PMID: 30847646]
  17. PLoS Med. 2005 Jul;2(7):e174 [PMID: 16013892]
  18. Stroke. 2007 Apr;38(4):1143-7 [PMID: 17322077]
  19. Int J Vasc Med. 2021 Dec 6;2021:4244267 [PMID: 34912581]
  20. Br J Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;192(1):52-8 [PMID: 18174510]
  21. J Neurol Sci. 2010 Dec 15;299(1-2):15-8 [PMID: 20889166]
  22. BMC Neurol. 2019 Nov 4;19(1):267 [PMID: 31684922]
  23. Lancet. 2014 Jan 25;383(9914):333-41 [PMID: 24168957]
  24. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019;47(1-2):24-31 [PMID: 30763948]
  25. Stroke. 2014 Aug;45(8):2532-53 [PMID: 24846875]
  26. Neurology. 2018 Nov 13;91(20):e1838-e1850 [PMID: 30333158]
  27. Int J Stroke. 2012 Jan;7(1):74-80 [PMID: 22188854]
  28. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006 Oct;3(4):A118 [PMID: 16978493]
  29. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005 Apr;53(4):695-9 [PMID: 15817019]
  30. Neurology. 2022 Nov 8;99(19):e2137-e2148 [PMID: 36344278]
  31. Stroke. 2013 Jun;44(6):1621-8 [PMID: 23652272]
  32. Circ Res. 2022 Apr 15;130(8):1252-1271 [PMID: 35420911]
  33. Psychometrika. 1947 Jun;12(2):153-7 [PMID: 20254758]
  34. Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7 [PMID: 3363593]
  35. Stroke. 2014 Apr;45(4):1059-63 [PMID: 24603070]
  36. J Aging Health. 2013 Dec;25(8 Suppl):128S-46S [PMID: 24385633]
  37. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2021 Jul;35(7):585-600 [PMID: 34027728]
  38. OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2011 Winter;31(1):S23-9 [PMID: 24650260]
  39. Australas J Ageing. 2008 Mar;27(1):33-7 [PMID: 18713213]
  40. Stroke. 2021 Aug;52(8):e499-e516 [PMID: 34039035]
  41. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 11;10(6):e0129917 [PMID: 26067432]
  42. Front Neurol. 2021 Dec 23;12:761092 [PMID: 35002923]
  43. Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1290-3 [PMID: 20378863]
  44. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 May 1;6(5):e2310919 [PMID: 37126346]
  45. Stroke. 1989 Jul;20(7):864-70 [PMID: 2749846]
  46. Am J Occup Ther. 2009 Sep-Oct;63(5):621-5 [PMID: 19785261]
  47. Stroke. 2003 May;34(5):1136-43 [PMID: 12702832]
  48. Stroke. 2011 Apr;42(4):1146-51 [PMID: 21372310]
  49. Stroke. 2023 May;54(5):1303-1311 [PMID: 37026459]
  50. J Neurol Sci. 2017 Feb 15;373:100-104 [PMID: 28131163]
  51. Epidemiology. 1992 Sep;3(5):434-40 [PMID: 1391136]
  52. Lancet Healthy Longev. 2024 Jan;5(1):e31-e44 [PMID: 38101426]
  53. Stroke. 2017 Nov;48(11):3093-3100 [PMID: 28931620]
  54. Stroke. 2017 Jan;48(1):98-104 [PMID: 27899753]

MeSH Term

Humans
Male
Female
Stroke
Aged
Cognition
Middle Aged
Prospective Studies
Stroke Rehabilitation
Mental Status and Dementia Tests
Recovery of Function
Cognitive Dysfunction

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0cognitivestroke3-12-monthsrecoveryMoCAclustersindividual-levelbestclinicalCognitivepost-strokeusingscoresbaseline=3-monthsactivityhalfpopulationtimeidentifydemographicstateadministeredimpairmentratesidentifiedp<0001decreasedp0significantlyoutcomesyearfirstpredictionBACKGROUND:MildaffectsyetlimitedevidencecharacterizingcognitionespeciallypredictiveapproachesapplicableaimedpatternscombinationlifestylefactorspredictingmildMETHODS:prospectivecohortstudyMontrealAssessment3-7daysRawchangesdefinedMoCA<24pointscomparedassessmenttime-pointsTrajectoryvariations≥1pointcompareadditionalassessmentsincludedGammaQuantilemixed-effectsregressionusedpredictindividualvariablesModelpredictionsfittedsurvivorevaluatedmodelcross-validationoverallpredictorsRESULTS:Participants'n119improved010168NinedistincttrajectoryClinicalcharacteristicstime-pointvariedand/orparticipationperformancepredictedyoungeragehigherphysicallevelsleft-hemispherelesionsideCONCLUSION:mild-strokesurvivorsriskdeclineoneevenprecededimprovingpatternPhysicalmodifiablefactorindependentlyassociatedIndividual-levelmethodsmayinformtimingpersonalizedapplicationfutureinterventionsmaximizeCharacterization'mild'

Similar Articles

Cited By