Objective To assess if very elderly people with hypertension obtain early benefit from antihypertensive treatment.Design One year open label active treatment extension of randomised controlled trial (Hypertension in the Very Elderly Trial (HYVET)).Setting Hospital and general practice based centres mainly in eastern and western Europe, China, and Tunisia.Participants People on double blind treatment at the end of HYVET were eligible to enter the extension.Interventions Participants on active blood pressure lowering treatment continued taking active drug; those on placebo were given active blood pressure lowering treatment. The treatment regimen was as used in the main trial-indapamide SR 1.5 mg (plus perindopril 2-4 mg if required)-with the same target blood pressure of less than 150/80 mm Hg. Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was all stroke; other outcomes included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular events. ResultsOf 1882 people eligible for entry to the extension, 1712 (91%) agreed to participate. During the extension period, 1682 patient years were accrued. By six months, the difference in blood pressure between the two groups was 1.2/0.7 mm Hg. Comparing people previously treated with active drug and those previously on placebo, no significant differences were seen for stroke (n=13; hazard ratio 1.92, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 6.22) or cardiovascular events (n=25; 0.78, 0.36 to 1.72). Differences were seen for total mortality (47 deaths; hazard ratio 0.48, 0.26 to 0.87; P=0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (11 deaths; 0.19, 0.04 to 0.87; P=0.03). ConclusionVery elderly patients with hypertension may gain immediate benefit from treatment. Sustained differences in reductions of total mortality and cardiovascular mortality reinforce the benefits and support the need for early and long term treatment.Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00122811.

This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with upper extremity motor impairment after stroke, compared to conventional training, VR training did not lead to significant differences in upper extremity function improvement.

Functional alterations after ischemic stroke have been described with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and perfusion Positron Emission Tomography (PET), but no data on in vivo synaptic changes exist. Recently, imaging of synaptic density became available by targeting synaptic vesicle protein 2 A, a protein ubiquitously expressed in all presynaptic nerve terminals. We hypothesized that in subacute ischemic stroke loss of synaptic density can be evaluated with 11C-UCB-J PET in the ischemic tissue and that alterations in synaptic density can be present in brain regions beyond the ischemic core. We recruited ischemic stroke patients to undergo 11C-UCB-J PET/MR imaging 21 ± 8 days after stroke onset to investigate regional 11C-UCB-J SUVR (standardized uptake value ratio). There was a decrease (but residual signal) of 11C-UCB-J SUVR within the lesion of 16 stroke patients compared to 40 healthy controls (ratiolesion/controls = 0.67 ± 0.28, p = 0.00023). Moreover, 11C-UCB-J SUVR was lower in the non-lesioned tissue of the affected hemisphere compared to the unaffected hemisphere (ΔSUVR = −0.17, p = 0.0035). The contralesional cerebellar hemisphere showed a lower 11C-UCB-J SUVR compared to the ipsilesional cerebellar hemisphere (ΔSUVR = −0.14, p = 0.0048). In 8 out of 16 patients, the asymmetry index suggested crossed cerebellar diaschisis. Future research is required to longitudinally study these changes in synaptic density and their association with outcome.

Somatosensory impairments are common in subacute patients poststroke and are related to motor outcome. Visuospatial neglect was associated with more severe upper-limb somatosensory impairments.

BackgroundVirtual reality (VR) training is thought to improve upper limb (UL) motor function after stroke when utilizing intensive training with many repetitions. The purpose of this study was to compare intensity and content of a VR training intervention to a conventional task-oriented intervention (CT).MethodsA random sample of 50 video recordings was analyzed of patients with a broad range of UL motor impairments (mean age 61y, 22 women). Patients took part in the VIRTUES trial and were randomized to either VR or CT and stratified according to severity of paresis. A standardized scoring form was used to analyze intensity, i.e. active use of the affected UL expressed in % of total time, total active time and total duration of a training session in minutes, content of training and feedback. Two raters collected data independently. Linear regression models as well as descriptive and graphical methods were used.ResultsPatients in the VR group spent significantly more time actively practicing with an activity rate of 77.6 (8.9) % than patients in the CT 67.3 (13.9) %, (p = .003). This difference was attributed to the subgroup of patients with initially severe paresis (n = 22). While in VR severely impaired patients spent 80.7 % (4.4 %) of the session time actively; they reached 60.6 (12.1) % in CT. VR and CT also differed in terms of tasks and feedback provided.ConclusionOur results indicate that patients with severely impaired UL motor function spent more time actively in VR training, which may influence recovery. The upcoming results of the VIRTUES trial will show whether this is correlated with an increased effect of VR compared to CT.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02079103, February 27, 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12883-016-0740-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background: Somatosensory function plays an important role in motor learning. More than half of the stroke patients have somatosensory impairments in the upper limb, which could hamper recovery.Question: Is sensorimotor upper limb (UL) therapy of more benefit for motor and somatosensory outcome than motor therapy?Design: Randomized assessor- blinded multicenter controlled trial with block randomization stratified for neglect, severity of motor impairment, and type of stroke.Participants: 40 first-ever stroke patients with UL sensorimotor impairments admitted to the rehabilitation center.Intervention: Both groups received 16 h of additional therapy over 4 weeks consisting of sensorimotor (N = 22) or motor (N = 18) UL therapy.Outcome measures: Action Research Arm test (ARAT) as primary outcome, and other motor and somatosensory measures were assessed at baseline, post-intervention and after 4 weeks follow-up.Results: No significant between-group differences were found for change scores in ARAT or any somatosensory measure between the three time points. For UL impairment (Fugl-Meyer assessment), a significant greater improvement was found for the motor group compared to the sensorimotor group from baseline to post-intervention [mean (SD) improvement 14.65 (2.19) vs. 5.99 (2.06); p = 0.01] and from baseline to follow-up [17.38 (2.37) vs. 6.75 (2.29); p = 0.003].Conclusion: UL motor therapy may improve motor impairment more than UL sensorimotor therapy in patients with sensorimotor impairments in the early rehabilitation phase post stroke. For these patients, integrated sensorimotor therapy may not improve somatosensory function and may be less effective for motor recovery.Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT03236376.

Background: Post-stroke trunk control is reported to be associated with trunk performance and recovery of the upper limb, but the evidence for the influence of trunk exercise on both of these is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of trunk exercises on trunk performance post-stroke, and to determine if these exercises result in improved upper limb function. Methods: A comprehensive search of the literature published between January 1990 and February 2017 was conducted using the following electronic databases; AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychInfo and SPORTDiscus. Only randomized, controlled trials, published in English, evaluating the effect of trunk exercises on trunk performance and/or upper limb function post-stroke, were included. Results: A total of 17 studies involving 599 participants were analysed. Meta-analysis showed that trunk exercises had a large significant effect on trunk performance post-stroke. This effect varied from very large for acute stroke to medium for subacute and chronic stroke. None of the included studies had measured the effect of trunk exercise on upper limb impairment or functional activity. Conclusions: Trunk exercises improve trunk performance for people with acute, subacute and chronic strokes. As yet there is no evidence to support the effect of trunk exercise on upper limb function.

No abstract