ambulation and secondary complications after sci
DESCRIPTION
Thank you for joining us! Our webcast, ‘Ambulation and Secondary Conditions after SCI,’ will begin at 12:00PM EDT. Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI. Lee L. Saunders, PhD Medical University of South Carolina May 22, 2014. Acknowledgement. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Thank you for joining us!
Our webcast, ‘Ambulation and Secondary Conditions after SCI,’ will begin at 12:00PM
EDT.
![Page 2: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI
Lee L. Saunders, PhDMedical University of South Carolina
May 22, 2014
![Page 3: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Acknowledgement• The contents of this presentation were developed under grants from the Department of Education, NIDRR grant numbers H133B090005, H133G090059, and H133G050165 and a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1R01 NS 48117. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education or NIH, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
![Page 4: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Collaborators• James S. Krause, PhD (Principal Investigator)• Sandra S. Brotherton, PhD, PT (Co-I)• Sara Kraft, DPT (Co-I)•David C. Morrisette, PhD, PT (Co-I)
• Student Contributors:oNicole D. DiPiro, MSoRyan K. Kohout, MD
![Page 5: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Objectives
1. Identify the relationship between prescription medication use and ability to ambulate distances after SCI.
2. Identify secondary complications related to assistive walking devices after SCI.
3. Identify the relationship of assistive walking devices and fall-related injuries after SCI.
![Page 6: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Background• Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a severe disabling condition that occurs suddenly and generally results in permanent sensory and motor loss.
• Frequently leads to secondary health conditions that are particularly devastating as they restrict participation, reduce quality of life (QOL), and diminish life expectancy.
![Page 7: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Background• The proportion of persons with incomplete SCI has increased in recent years, most likely due to a number of factors, including improved techniques for emergency management.(NSCISC, 2013)
• There are a substantial number of individuals with incomplete SCI and lower-level lesions who retain or redevelop the ability to walk to differing degrees.(Morganti, Scivoletto, Ditunno, Ditunno, & Molinari, 2005; New, 2005; Wirz et al., 2005)
![Page 8: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Background• Ambulation has been associated with many positive improvements in both physical health and subjective well being.
![Page 9: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Preliminary Studies• Persons with SCI who are ambulatory have shown:• Higher risk of subsequent injury (Krause, 2004)
• Higher risk of falls (Brotherton et al., 2006)
•Among those ambulatory, persons dependent on others for assistance in walking have shown:• Higher levels of pain interference and prescription pain medication use (Krause et al., 2007a)
• Greater risk of a depressive disorder, however this relationship was mediated by pain interference (Krause et al., 2007b)
![Page 10: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Purpose•While studies have shown short-term benefits of gait training for people with SCI, some research suggests there may be unforeseen long-term adverse consequences of ambulation.• The purpose of this research study was to identify variations in ambulation after SCI based on use of assistive devices and/or reliance on people for ambulation, functionality of ambulation (distances), and their association with secondary conditions.
![Page 11: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Methods• IRB approval through MUSC.
• Participants were part of a larger longitudinal study of health outcomes after SCI.
• Identified through records of a large rehabilitation hospital in the Southeastern US.
• Inclusion criteria:o18+ years at assessmento1+ years post-injuryoTraumatic SCI with residual impairment
![Page 12: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Participants• Those who reported at least some ambulation were included:oAre you able to walk at all? Yes/No
•Overall of 1,689 participants, 31.3% reported being ambulatory (n=529).
• Those responding yes were asked a series of follow-up questions regarding:oDistance, assistive devices, portion of time spent ambulating around the home and community
oSecondary health conditions
![Page 13: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Ambulation Questions
![Page 14: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Participant DemographicsCharacteristic Ambulatory Non-
ambulatory p
Gender 0.0023
Male 69.6 76.6
Female 30.4 23.5
Race 0.1272
White 72.4 73.2
Black 20.6 22.2
Other 7.0 4.7
Injury Level <.0001
C1-C4 24.4 14.4
C5-C8 31.6 36.8
Non-cervical 44.0 48.8
Age at Assessment 50.0 (14.2) 47.7 (12.7) 0.0010
Years Post-injury 13.6 (8.5) 17.0 <.0001
![Page 15: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
RESULTS
![Page 16: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Reliance on Devices and People for Walking and Ability to Walk Community DistancesBrotherton, S.S., Saunders, L.L., Krause, J.S., & Morrisette, D.C. (2012). Association between reliance on devices and people for walking and ability to walk community distances among individuals with spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 35(3), 156-161.
![Page 17: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Reliance on Devices• Purpose: To identify and describe maximum walking distances and the reliance on assistive devices and/or people.•Distances: oMaximum Walking Distance• 10m, 150ft, 1000ft
oAble to climb stairs• Yes/No
•DevicesoWalker, cane(s), crutch(es), long leg brace(s), short leg brace(s) people
![Page 18: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Ambulation• 4.3% could not walk 10 meters (~33 ft)
• 20.6% could walk 10 meters (but not 150 ft)
• 27.8% could walk 150 ft (but not 1000 ft)
• 47.3% could walk 1000 feet
• 72.1% could walk up a flight of 12-14 stairs
![Page 19: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Ambulation
•Homeo71.5% walk a majority of the time
o5.7% walk/wheel 50/50
o22.8% wheel a majority of the time
• Communityo68.8% walk a majority of the time
o4.3% walk/wheel 50/50
o26.8% wheel a majority of the time
![Page 20: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Reliance on Devices• 33.4% did not use devices or people to assist in ambulation
• 30.2% used one device or a person
• 22.7% used 2
• 13.7% used 3+
![Page 21: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Reliance on Devices• 25.1% used a walker
• 20.6% used a crutch(es)
• 34.1% used a cane(s)
• 6.8% used a long leg brace(s)
• 21.7% used a short leg brace(s)
• 11.3% used another person for assistance
![Page 22: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Relationship between Prescription Medication Use and Ability to Ambulate DistancesKohout, R., Saunders, L.L., & Krause, J.S. (2011). The relationship between prescription medication use and ability to ambulate distances after spinal cord injury. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 92, 1246-1249.
![Page 23: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Prescription Medication and Distances
• To investigate the association of prescription medication for spasticity and pain with maximum ambulatory distance.
• Primary Outcome: Maximum walking distanceo<150m, <1000ft, 1000ft+
![Page 24: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Prescription Medication and Distances
• Primary PredictoroPrescription medication use for pain or spasticity• Minor – never, sometimes• Heavy – weekly, daily
• Control VariablesoGender (male, female)oRace (white, black)o Injury level (cervical, non-cervical)oPain severity (Brief Pain Inventory Score)
![Page 25: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Prescription Medication and Distances
VariableMaximum Walking Distance (ft)
p-value>1000 150-999 <150
Sex 0.0508
Male 51.3 27.1 21.6
Female 46.6 19.6 33.8
Race 0.0194
White 52.9 22.2 25.0
Black 38.4 33.7 27.9
Injury level 0.6392
Cervical 51.7 23.9 24.4
Non-cervical 47.8 25.4 26.9
Prescription use <.0001
Heavy 35.0 30.4 34.6
Minor 67.0 17.8 15.1
Age 42.613.6 45.614.4 50.514.7 0.0061
Pain Severity 2.62.1 3.82.6 2.5 <.0001
![Page 26: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Prescription Medication and Distances
VariableWalk <150 Walk 150-
999ft p-valueOR (95% CI)
Male (vs. Female) 0.51 (0.30-0.90) 1.14 (0.64-2.01) 0.019
White (vs. Black) 0.67 (0.34-1.32) 0.45 (0.24-0.83) 0.87
Cervical (vs. Non-C)
1.49 (0.85-2.60) 1.61 (0.95-2.76) 0.236
Age 1.04 (1.02-1.06) 1.01 (0.99-1.03) <.001
Pain Severity 1.21 (1.08-1.36) 1.11 (0.99-1.24) 0.003
Heavy medication (v. minor)
2.82 (1.57-5.04) 2.52 (1.45-4.39) <.001
![Page 27: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Conclusions•Heavy prescription medication use for pain and spasticity was inversely related to a person’s ability to achieve community ambulation distances of 1000ft or more.• Results may provide insight for clinicians involved in medication management for those with SCI.
![Page 28: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Ambulation and Secondary Complications Related to Devices after SCISaunders, L.L., Krause, J.S., DiPiro, N.D., Kraft, S., & Brotherton, S. (2013). Ambulation and secondary complications related to devices after spinal cord injury. Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine, 36(6), 652-659.
![Page 29: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Devices and Secondary Complications
• Purpose: To assess pain intensity, pain interference, and fatigue among persons with SCI who are ambulatory.
• Primary outcomes:oPain Intensity (Brief Pain Inventory)
oPain Interference (Brief Pain Inventory)
oFatigue (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale)
![Page 30: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Devices and Secondary Complications
• Primary Predictors:oWheel chair use (None, 50% or less, 51% or more)
oAssistance from people (yes, no)oLong leg braces (0, 1, 2)oShort leg braces (0, 1, 2)oCane (0, 1, 2)oCrutches (0, 1, 2)oWalker (yes, no)
![Page 31: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Devices and Secondary Complications
High Pain Intensity* p
High Pain Interference
*p
Wheel chair (v. none) 0.0010 <.0001
50% or less 2.05 (1.39-3.03)
2.11 (1.43-3.12)
51% or more 1.04 (0.75-1.44)
0.72 (0.51-1.02)
People (v. no) 0.0442 0.1232
Yes 1.51 (1.01-2.27)
1.38 (0.92-2.09)
Cane (v. none) 0.0006 <.0001
Unilateral (1) 1.86 (1.35-2.56)
2.11 (1.52-2.93)
Bilateral (2) 1.61 (0.78-3.32)
1.67 (0.79-3.46)
Long leg brace (v. none) 0.0625 0959
Unilateral (1) 2.06 (1.21-3.77)
1.60 (0.86-2.95)
Bilateral (2) 0.95 (0.52-1.73)
0.60 (0.30-1.19)
*controlling for age, gender and race
![Page 32: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Devices and Secondary Complications
Severe Fatigue p
Wheel chair (v. none) 0.0186
50% or less 1.99 (1.12-3.52)
51% or more 0.79 (0.44-3.52)
People (v. no) 0.4057
Yes 1.31 (0.69-2.48)
Cane (v. none)
Unilateral (1) 2.49 (1.52-4.08) 0.0014
Bilateral (2) 1.78 (0.58-5.43)
Long leg brace (v. none) 0.2323
Unilateral (1) 1.56 (0.63-3.90)
Bilateral (2) 0.37 (0.09-1.56)
![Page 33: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Conclusions• Among ambulatory persons with SCI, increased pain intensity, pain interference, and fatigue is seen among those with minimal wheelchair users (1-50%) as well as those who reported use of assistive devices that provide less support during ambulation.
![Page 34: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Pain and Fatigue as Mediators of the Relationship between Mobility Aid Usage and Depressive SymptomatologyDipiro, N. D., Saunders, L. L., Brotherton, S., Kraft, S., & Krause, J. S. (2014). Pain and fatigue as mediators of the relationship between mobility aid usage and depressive symptomatology in ambulatory individuals with SCI. Spinal Cord, 52, 316-321.
![Page 35: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Pain, Fatigue, Depression• Purpose: To test a mediational model where pain (intensity and interference) and fatigue mediate the relationship between use of mobility aids and moderate to severe depressive symptomatology.
• Primary Outcomes:oPatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) scores of 10+ were used to indicate moderate to severe depressive symptomatology.
![Page 36: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Pain, Fatigue, Depression• Predictor Variableso Injury level (C1-C4, C5-C8, Non-cervical)oRace (white, non-white)oGender (male, female)oAge & time post-injuryoAssistive devices (cane, crutch, leg brace, walker, people)
oWheelchair usage (<50%, 50%, 50-99%, always)oPain intensity (BPI)oPain interference (BPI)oFatigue (Modified Fatigue Impact Scale)
![Page 37: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Pain, Fatigue, DepressionModel 1* Model 2*
People (v. no)
Yes 2.63 (1.32-5.23) 1.26 (0.52-3.07)
Wheelchair usage (v. <50%)
~50% 2.30 (0.96-5.51) 1.38 (0.48-4.02)
More than 50% but not always
1.07 (0.56-2.06) 1.64 (0.75-3.60)
Always 0.29 (0.13-0.63) 0.55 (0.22-1.38)
Pain intensity (v. mild)
Moderate 1.42 (0.74-2.70)
Severe 3.32 (1.35-8.19)
Pain interference (v. mild)
Moderate 4.65 (2.42-8.94)
Severe 10.22 (4.35-24.04)
Fatigue (vs. non-disabling)
Disabling 7.44 (3.38-16.37)*controlling for injury level, race, gender, age, time post-injury
![Page 38: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Conclusions• Only use of people for ambulation and using a wheelchair less than 50% of the time were related to depression symptoms. Other devices were not significantly associated with depressive symptoms.• The use of people to assist in ambulation is associated with greater odds of moderate-to-severe depressive symptomatology, while alwaysusing a wheelchair is associated with lower odds.• Pain and fatigue mediate the relationship between usage of those assistive devices and depressive symptomatology.
![Page 39: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Fall-related InjuriesSaunders, L.L., DiPiro, N., Krause, J.S., Brotherton, S., & Kraft, S. (2013). Risk of fall related injuries among ambulatory participants with spinal cord injury. Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation, 19(4), 259-266.
![Page 40: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Fall-related Injuries• Purpose: To assess the relationships between walking devices and health behaviors with fall-related injuries (FRI) among persons with SCI who are ambulatory.
• Primary outcome: FRI in the past yearo“In the past year, how many falls have you had that resulted in an injury serious enough to receive medical care in a clinic, emergency room, or hospital?”• Dichotomized as Yes/No
![Page 41: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Fall-related Injuries• Predictor variables:
oMaximum walking distanceo% time spent walking at homeo% time spent walking in communityoWalk slower compared to people without disabilityoPoorer balance compared to people without disability
oAssistive devices (people, walker, cane/crutch/braces)
oExerciseoAlcohol useoPain medication misuses
![Page 42: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Fall-related Injuries• 20.3% reported at least 1 FRI in the past year
• Among those reporting FRIo56.3% reported 1o20.8% reported 2o8.3% reported 3o14.6% reported 4+
![Page 43: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Fall-related InjuriesOdds Ratio (95%
CI)*p-value
People (vs. no) 0.0770
Yes 2.22 (0.92-5.39)
% time walking at home (vs. walk more than wheel)
0.0004
½ and ½ 2.39 (0.95-6.06)
Wheel more than walk 0.26 (0.11-0.61)
Poorer balance (vs. no) 0.0017
Yes 2.41 (1.33-4.38)
Exercise (vs. Same/More) 0.0044
Much less/Less 2.77 (1.51-5.09)
Don’t know 1.62 (0.76-3.46)
Pain medication misuse (vs. no)
0.0071
Yes 2.53 (1.29-4.97)*controlling for demographics
![Page 44: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Fall-related Injuries•Health care providers should be aware of the risk for FRI among those who are ambulatory.
•Not only should ambulatory ability be taken into account but also health behaviors, including pain medication use.
![Page 45: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Conclusions• These analyses demonstrated there are groups of people, among those who are ambulatory with SCI, who are at increased risk for secondary conditions.
• This was especially seen among persons who reported using a wheelchair, but used it less than half of the time.
• Clinicians should be aware of the risks of secondary health conditions among persons with SCI who are ambulatory.
• We found increased risks also among those who frequently use prescription medications for pain and/or spasticity.
![Page 46: Ambulation and Secondary Complications after SCI](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022081512/56813eef550346895da9688b/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
Future Research• Assess changes in ambulation status and the relationship of those changes with secondary health conditions.
• As we saw increased risks among those who used wheelchairs, but used them minimally, we should assess transition from ambulation to wheelchair use.
• Look at broader outcomes, including QOL and participation.