Intermittent pneumatic compression combined with rehabilitation training improves motor function deficits in patients with acute cerebral infarction

• Published in: Acta neurologica Belgica 2021-12, Vol.121 (6), p.1561-1566
• Main Authors: Wei, Jiangshan, Zhu, Xiangyu, Xia, Lei, Zhao, Ying, Yang, Guang, Han, Qiu, Shen, Jun
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Activities of Daily Living; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biomedical and Life Sciences; Biomedicine; Cerebral Infarction - diagnosis; Cerebral Infarction - physiopathology; Cerebral Infarction - therapy; Combined Modality Therapy - methods; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Hemiplegia - diagnosis; Hemiplegia - physiopathology; Hemiplegia - therapy; Humans; Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Devices; Male; Medicine/Public Health; Middle Aged; Motor Skills - physiology; Neurological Rehabilitation - methods; Neurology; Neuroradiology; Neurosciences; Original Article; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors - administration & dosage
• ISSN: 0300-9009; 2240-2993; 2240-2993
• DOI: 10.1007/s13760-020-01414-2

To investigate the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) combined with rehabilitation training on patients with acute cerebral infarction and motor impairment, seventy-four patients with acute cerebral infarction and hemiplegia were randomly and equally divided into two groups, the control group and the IPC treatment group. The patients in the control group received conventional drug therapy and rehabilitation training, and the patients in the treatment group received the IPC treatment in addition to the treatment given in the control group. Motor function, the primary outcome, of the two groups was evaluated by Fugl–Meyer motor function scores. The Barthel index assessment scale was used to evaluate the ability to perform activities of daily living of the two groups, as a secondary outcome. All these indicators were collected and compared before treatment and at 7 days, 14 days, and 30 days after treatment. The incidence of adverse reactions associated with treatment was also recorded. At 7, 14, and 30 days after treatment, the Fugl–Meyer scores (27.16 ± 7.37, 33.41 ± 7.16 and 38.72 ± 7.65) and Barthel scores (47.16 ± 7.37, 52.41 ± 7.16, and 56.09 ± 8.32) of the treatment group were also significantly higher than those (23.65 ± 3.11, 26.13 ± 3.25, and 28.75 ± 5.92; 44.15 ± 3.11, 46.63 ± 3.25 and 47.75 ± 4.22) of the control group (all P