Skip to content

Prospective Evaluation of Atrial Fibrillation-Related Stroke Patients in Rehabilitation Program (PEARL), an Observational Cohort Study

Prospective Evaluation of Atrial Fibrillation-Related Stroke Patients in Rehabilitation Program (PEARL), an Observational Cohort Study. TARGET: Health Virtual Twins for the Personalised Management of Stroke Related to Atrial Fibrillation.

Status
Recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT07253974
Acronym
PEARL
Enrollment
213
Registered
2025-11-28
Start date
2024-11-11
Completion date
2027-12-01
Last updated
2025-12-15

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Brain Disease, Cardiovascular Disease Acute, Disability Physical, Hemiplegia and/or Hemiparesis Following Stroke, Rehabilitation Outcome, STROKE

Keywords

functional outcomes, stroke, disability, rehabilitation, high intensity rehabilitation program

Brief summary

The goal of this observational study is to determine if rehabilitation program intensity impacts functional recovery and specific needs in adult ischemic stroke patients who require inpatient rehabilitation. The main questions it aims to answer are: Do patients with stroke of Atrial-related subtypes (AFRS) have distinct rehabilitation needs and functional outcomes compared to non-AFRS patients? Does higher-intensity inpatient rehabilitation (3-5 sessions/day) result in better functional recovery at six months (measured by the Barthel Index) than moderate-intensity programs (1 session/day)? The study is non-invasive, does not interfere with usual care. The investigators' ultimate goal is to enhance the understanding of recovery after following different rehabilitation usual programs.

Detailed description

Introduction: Rehabilitation is recognised as a cornerstone of the recovery stroke care period. The intensity of therapy is related to functional recovery. Longitudinal studies investigating differences in short- and long-term outcomes of ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes are scarce. The investigators do not know whether AFRS have specific rehabilitation needs or different functional outcomes from non-AFRS. Identifying differences in aetiology and stroke recovery can help the scientific community to develop predictive models of recovery optimizing available resources. Methods and analysis: In this prospective observational study stroke patients will be recruited in the Stroke Unit of one tertiary hospital. Patients discharged from the Stroke Unit who need inpatient rehabilitation will be allocated to two rehabilitation centers with programs of different intensity: High-intensity (3-5 session daily) or Moderate-intensity (1session daily) based on Rehabilitation Catalan Stroke Rehabilitation Plan. Screening criteria are based on Current clinical items: age, prior functional level, neurological impairment and cognitive and medical status. After discharge from the stroke unit, the post-acute inpatient care services for stroke patients include rehabilitation facilities and long-term care hospitals. Intensive inpatient programs provide hospital-level care and offer rehabilitation (RHB) at least 3 sessions of therapy per day 6 days a week, aiming at regaining lost body functions and recovering autonomy in basic activities of daily life. Patients treated in these inpatient rehabilitation facilities have better functional outcomes and higher rates of return to community living than those treated in general wards or long-term care hospitals. Long-term care centres and Nursing Facilities offer Moderate-intensity programs, which consist of 1 session of rehabilitation daily. In patients with moderate-to-severe post-stroke acute deficits, there is high inter-individual variability in recovery which makes predicting outcomes much more difficult. Accumulated evidence suggests that both initial motor impairment and long-term motor outcome depend on the severity of corticospinal tract (CST) damage and the integrity of alternative motor fibres. Measurements extracted from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), diffusion tensor (DTI), and functional imaging (fMRI) provide comprehensive in vivo metrics of local microstructural and functional connectivity properties of brain tissue. Despite these advances, in clinical practice, there is no validated gold standard for predicting functional outcomes after stroke. Nevertheless, to date 21 stroke registries across 19 different countries have been documented; and some clinical trials aimed at developing data-driven prediction models are currently underway, These efforts reflect a growing interest among RHB- teams in optimizing interventions throughout the stroke care continuum. Differences between aetiology Typically published studies do not differentiate between stroke aetiology, at most they may define ischaemic or haemorrhagic events. Longitudinal studies investigating differences in short- and long-term outcomes of strokes according to their aetiology are scarce. Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 1-2% of the general population and is associated with a 5-fold increased risk of stroke. In the Nationwide Danish Stroke Registry analysing 14.662 patients with atrial fibrillation related stroke (AFRS) experienced more severe strokes and higher morbidity and mortality rates, with a final greater disability at discharge. However, the investigators do not have information on the rehabilitation needs and final functional results in specific AFRS, but some recent studies suggests that AF type and related cardiac markers could serve as predictors for poor functional and cognitive outcomes. Identifying differences in aetiology and stroke recovery can help the scientific community to develop predictive models of recovery optimizing available resources. The PEARL study is part of the TARGET project, a Horizon Europe funded programme which includes risk prediction, diagnosis and management of AF-related stroke (https://target-horizon.eu/). One of the aims of the project focuses on identifying predictors of functional independence and quality of life in AFRS survivors and facilitating personalisation of rehabilitation. The PEARL study, as part of the TARGET project, is a prospective observational cohort study conducted over a two-year period in a tertiary Rehabilitation department. The study aims to collect data on the recovery trajectory of patients with acute stroke, with a particular focus on comparing individuals with atrial fibrillation-related stroke (AFRS) to those without, in terms of functional outcomes following admission to either high- or moderate-intensity rehabilitation programmes. Ethics and dissemination: National and international research ethics guidelines will be followed, including the Deontological Code of Ethics, Declaration of Helsinki, and Spain's confidentiality law concerning personal data (Ley Orgánica 15/1999, 13 December, Protección de Datos de Carácter Personal). The study has received approval by the local Ethics Committee (N. 2023/11172/I) and participants will give written consent prior to study inclusion.It has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov

Interventions

OTHERRehabilitation program based on Physiotherapy, occupational therapy and swallow and language therapy

Rehabilitation will begin in the acute care setting. After discharge from the stroke unit, all patients needing inpatient rehabilitation will undergo standard therapies (physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy, social work and neuropsychology) in an Intensive Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities (IRF) or a Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNF). The choice of setting will depend on age, functional level before stroke, stroke impairment severity and cognitive and medical status. In the High-Intensity Rehabilitation program in IRF, patients will undergo at least 3 sessions of Inpatient Physiotherapy (PT), Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech-Language Pathologist (SLT). In the moderate-intensity rehabilitation program delivered in SNFs, patients will receive approximately one or two session of therapy per day, including PT, OT, and SLT, when indicated.

Sponsors

Parc de Salut Mar
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 99 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

\> 18 a, first-ever intracerebral ischemic stroke \-

Exclusion criteria

* intracranial haemorrhage, symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation, new infarcts after the initial stroke or other neurological or psychiatric conditions.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Barthel improvementThe assessment will be performed at inpatient rehabilitation at Baseline, at admission to the rehabilitation dept (T0), at 1-month follow-up (T1-discharge), and at 3-month (T2) and 6-month (T3) follow-ups after the acute event.To compare 6-month functional outcomes (Barthel Index) between AFRS and non-AFRS patients within high-intensity and moderate-intensity rehabilitation programs. Unit of Measure: Score (0-100)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change Barthel from Baseline to 6-month follow-up outcomesFrom enrollment to 6-month after stroke eventTo compare 6-month functional outcomes (Barthel Index) between AFRS and non-AFRS patients within high-intensity and moderate-intensity rehabilitation programs.
Functional Ambulation Category (FAC)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventAmbulation ability classification. Ordinal category (0-5)
Trunk Control Test (TCT)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventAssesses trunk control in stroke patients Score (0-100)
Berg Balance Scale (BBS)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventAssessment of static and dynamic balance. Score (0-56)
Timed Up and Go (TUG)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventFunctional mobility test: sit-to-stand, ambulation, turning, and return Unit of Measure: Seconds
Gait Velocity (10-Meter Walk Test)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventWalking speed over 10 meters. Unit of Measure: Meters/second (m/s)
9-Hole Peg Test (9HPT)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventFine motor dexterity test Unit of Measure: Seconds
Functional outcomes pre and after rehabilitation programFrom enrollment to 6-month follow-up.To evaluate differences in occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech therapy, and cognitive outcomes between AFRS and non-AFRS patients:
Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)Baseline (T0), follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventCognitive screening for multiple domains. Unit of Measure: Score (0-30)
EQ-5D-5LBaseline (T0), six-month (T3) after the acute eventQuality-of-life measure including index score and VAS Unit of Measure: Index score and VAS (0-100)
Dysphagia Assessment (Volume-Viscosity Swallow Test)Baseline (T0)Evaluation of swallowing safety and efficacy. Unit of Measure: Categorical (normal / impaired)
Aphasia PresenceBaseline (T0)and six-month (T3) after the acute eventAphasia recorded by speech-language pathology. Unit of Measure: Dichotomous (yes/no)
NIH Stroke Scale (NIHSS)Baseline (T0)Quantifies neurological deficit in acute stroke. Unit of Measure: Score (0-42)
Modified Rankin Scale (mRS)Baseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventGlobal disability scale Unit of Measure: Score (0-6)
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)Baseline (T0), and follow-up at six months (T3) after the acute eventMeasures symptoms of anxiety and depression. Unit of Measure: Score (0-21 for anxiety; 0-21 for depression)
Handgrip StrengthBaseline (T0), 1-mo follow-up (discharge--T1) and follow-up at 3-month (T2) and six-month (T3) after the acute eventUpper-limb strength measured via dynamometry. Unit of Measure: Kilograms (kg)

Countries

Spain

Contacts

Primary ContactAnna Guillen-Sola, MD, PhD
aguillen@hmar.cat+34659527833
Backup ContactEster Marco Navarro, MD, PhD
aguillensola@gmail.com

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026