Stroke

Stroke (2)

Tuesday, 16 November 2010 22:02

Stroke Risks While Under Chiropractic Care

Written by

Stroke Risks While Under Chiropractic Care

Debunking the Myth that Chiropractic Causes Stroke

A report on the scientific literature 



By
Gerard Clum DC, Past President, Life Chiropractic College West

Mark Studin DC, FASBE (C), DAAPM, DAAMLP
 

According to the American Heart Association (2010), a stroke "...is a disease that affects the arteries leading to and within the brain. It is the No. 3 cause of death in the United States, behind diseases of the heart and cancer. A stroke occurs when a blood vessel that carries oxygen and nutrients to the brain is either blocked by a clot or bursts. When that happens, part of the brain cannot get the blood (and oxygen) it needs, so it starts to die...Stroke can be caused either by a clot obstructing the flow of blood to the brain (called an ischemic stroke) or by a blood vessel rupturing and preventing blood flow to the brain (called a hemorrhagic stroke)...The brain is an extremely complex organ that controls various body functions. If a stroke occurs and blood flow can't reach the region that controls a particular body function, a stroke will ensue, then that part of the body won't work as it should" (http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/AboutStroke/About-stroke_UCM_308529_SubHomePage.jsp).   


The AHA (2010) also posts signs and symptoms of an impending stroke. These include numbness or weakness of one side of the face, sudden confusion, difficulty speaking or understanding, problems seeing out of one or both eyes, sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance or coordination, and severe and sudden headaches with no known cause.

The blood supply to the brain is provided through the vertebral arteries and the carotid arteries. Problems in any of these arteries can result in the development of a thrombus (clot) or an embolism. If the thrombus is large enough it can occlude the normal blood flow. If an embolism occurs, it can move through the circulation into the brain and occlude blood flow. Either way, a stroke can be the result of these situations. One of the unique characteristics of strokes of this nature is that they can involve neck pain and headache.

Many patients will seek chiropractor care for neck pain and headaches. In the great majority of cases, the pain involved is not related to a stroke. However, on occasion, it may be. When the pain is related to a stroke, some of these patients developed a full range of stroke symptoms. Over the years, reports in the popular press and the scientific literature have suggested or stated outright that in patients who experience a stroke following chiropractic care, the stroke was caused by the chiropractor! We now know that this is very unlikely to be the case. What is far more likely is that the patient developed a thrombus or embolism in their vertebral arteries, producing neck pain and headache. This person sought health care for the pain. Whether they saw a chiropractor or their medical provider, they would progress on to a stroke at virtually the same rate. While the argument that the chiropractor caused the problem is convenient, the science indicates that it is in all likelihood a mistake to draw such a conclusion.

In 2008, Cassidy, Boyle, Côté, He, Hogg-Johnson, Silver, and Bondy  studied the occurrence of this problem in the province of Ontario over a nine year period with a database representing almost 110 million person-years (12.2 million people, studied over 9 years equals 110 million person-years). The purpose of this study was to investigate if an association between chiropractic care and vertebral basilar artery stroke exceeded the association between medical primary care providers and vertebral basilar artery stroke. The premise was that if there was a greater association between chiropractic care and this stroke then one could logically say there was a cause and effect relationship between chiropractic care and this problem. There was no greater likelihood of a patient experiencing a stroke following a visit to his/her chiropractor than there was after a visit to his/her primary care physician. The results were conclusive; there was no greater association between manipulation (chiropractic adjustments) and ischemic stroke or TIA's (transient ischemic attacks).

The research did conclude that overall, 4% of stroke victims had visited a chiropractor within 30 days of their strokes, while 53% of the stroke cases had visited their medical primary care providers within the same time frame. The authors offer the perspective that because neck pain is associated with some stroke, patients visit their doctors prior to the development of a full-blown stroke scenario. Cassidy et al. (2008) noted, "Because the association between chiropractic visits and [vertebral basilar artery] stroke is not greater than the association between PCP [medical primary care providers] visits and [vertebral basilar] stroke, there is no excess risk of [vertebral basilar] stroke from chiropractic care" (p. S180). In fact, the incident of chiropractic vs. medical care was substantially lower in certain situations based upon the data.

In 2010, Murphy considered the argument that a chiropractic manipulation could cause stroke and concluded, "...if this is a possibility, it would have to be considered so rare that a case-control and case crossover study covering over 109,000,000 person-years failed to detect it" (h
ttp://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/22). He also reports that "... in 20% of cases of [vertebral artery dissection and stroke] the individual does not have neck pain or headache and in a very small percentage of vertebral artery dissections can occur in a person who has no symptoms of any kind. Thus, in cases in which an asymptomatic individual experiences [vertebral artery dissection and stroke] after [chiropractic manipulation] it is not clear whether manipulation was a cause or contributing factor to the dissection or whether the patient had an asymptomatic arterial dissection prior to the chiropractic visit" (Murphy, 2010, http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/22). He concluded his report with the following, "...current evidence indicates that [vertebral artery dissection and stroke] is not a 'complication to [chiropractic manipulation]' per se. That is, the weight of the evidence suggests that [chiropractic manipulation] is not a cause of [vertebral artery dissection and stroke]..." (Murphy, 2010, http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/22).

The real issue is not whether chiropractic or medical primary care causes stroke, as the research conclusively refutes this, but rather it is an issue of public awareness and perception. The argument must shift to the real issue of protecting the public and making people aware of the importance of recognizing risk factors and of gettiing immediate care to avoid long term disability or death.

Murphy (2010) offers the following advice, "...engage in a public health campaign to educate the public about the warning signs and symptoms of this uncommon but potentially devastating disorder...
public education materials regarding stroke in general are available from organizations such as the American Stroke Association (http://www.strokeassociation.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3030387 accessed 1 April 2010) the National Stroke Association (http://www.stroke.org/site/PageServer?pagename=HOME accessed 1 April 2010) the British Stroke Association (http://www.stroke.org.uk/information/index.html accessed 22 May 2010), the Heart and Stroke Association of Canada (http:/ / www.heartandstroke.com/ site/ c.ikIQLcMWJtE/ b.2796497/ k.BF8B/ Home.htm?src=home accessed 22 May 2010) and the National Stroke Foundation - Australia (http://www.strokefoundation.com.au/ accessed 22 May 2010)..." (http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/22).




References:
1. American Heart Association, Inc. (2010). About stroke. Retrieved from http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/AboutStroke/About-stroke_UCM_308529_SubHomePage.jsp
2. American Heart Association, Inc. (2010). Warning signs. Retrieved from http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/WarningSigns/Warning-Signs_UCM_308528_SubHomePage.jsp
3. American Heart Association, Inc. (2010). Ischemic (clots). Retrieved fromhttp://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/AboutStroke/TypesofStroke/IschemicClots/Ischemic-Clots_UCM_310939_Article.jsp
4. Cassidy, J. D., Boyle, E., Côté, P., He, Y., Hogg-Johnson, S., Silver, F. L., & Bondy, S. J. (2008). Risk of vertebrobasilar stroke and chiropractic care: Results of a population-based case-control and case-crossover study. Spine, 33(45), S176-S183.
5. Murphy, D. R. (2010). Current understanding of the relationship between cervical manipulation and stroke: What does it mean for the chiropractic profession? Chiorpractic & Osteopathy, 18(22),
http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/18/1/22

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

Stroke Rehabilitation and The Positive Effects of Chiropractic on the Response to the Central Nervous System and Motor Training Tasks

 

A report on the scientific literature 


By

Mark Studin DC, FASBE (C), DAAPM, DAAMLP

 

Whithall, McCombe Waller, Silver, and Macko (2000) reported, "Stroke is the third leading cause of death in the United States and the leading cause of adult disability. Annually, approximately 750,000 Americans suffer a stroke. Although incidence rates have remained constant over the last 3 decades, mortality has declined, leaving an increasing number of patients requiring rehabilitation. Approximately two thirds of stroke survivors have residual neurological deficits that persistently impair function. Specifically, dysfunction from upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis [weakness on one side of the body] impairs performance of many daily activities such as dressing, bathing, self-care, and writing, thus reducing functional independence. In fact, only 5% of adults regain full arm function after stroke, and 20% regain no functional use. Hence, alternative strategies are needed to reduce the long-term disability and functional impairment from UE hemiparesis [weakness on one side of the body]" (p. 2390).

According to Kleim and Jones (2008), neuroscientists (specialists who study how the brain and nervous systems work) are often asked about specific therapies that should be included in clinical treatment programs. They go on to report that the data points to brain cells possessing the ability to alter their structure and function in response to a variety of internal and external pressures and is called "neural plasticity." They go on to say that, "Neural plasticity is believed to be the basis for both learning in the intact brain and relearning in the damaged brain that occurs through physical rehabilitation. Neuroscience research has made significant advances in understanding experience-dependent neural plasticity, and these findings are beginning to be integrated with research on the degenerative and regenerative effects of brain damage" (Kleim & Jones, 2008, p. S225). When you any type of brain damage, the goal is to limit additional damage and help restore as much function as possible.

Whithall et al. (2000) reported that, " Traditionally, methods of stroke rehabilitation have been focused on the first 3 months after stroke and consist largely of passive (nonspecific) movement approaches or compensatory training of the nonparetic [non affected] arm.

This time window is consistent with natural history studies of stroke recovery that show a plateau after 3 months. Recently, both the paradigms for rehabilitation interventions and the time frame for possible UE motor recovery have been challenged. Experiments demonstrate that functional gains and possible neural plasticity can occur, via active practice, long after spontaneous recovery would be expected to end. For example, monkey models of chronic stroke demonstrate functional recovery as well as cortical reorganization after being forced to use their paretic limb. On the basis of this 'forced-use' paradigm, Taub, Wolf, and colleagues constrained the nonparetic [non affected] arm of patients with chronic stroke and forced the use of the paretic arm in task-specific activities in an intensive 2-week protocol" (p. 2390).

The goal of rehabilitation is to create new pathways for the brain to express itself in the form of movement and function to enable the stroke victim to regain as much function as possible. This allows the individual to live as normal a life as he/she can without care and support from aides, devices and specialists, rendering a level of physical and resultant emotional independence.

Taylor and Murphy reported in 2010 that when motor activity is followed by a chiropractic spinal manipulation/adjustment, it altered the way in which the central nervous system responded to motor training tasks. In both the patient with and without recurring neck pain, it positively affected the process of use-dependant neural plastic changes. The research went on to report that spinal manipulation/adjusting alone leads to improved function. However, spinal manipulation/adjusting in combination with motor training tasks "...not only results in altered sensorimotor integration but also alters the way the CNS responds to a functional task..." (Taylor & Murphy, 2010, p. 268). Taylor goes on to report, "The results of this study suggests that this is possible, as an improved ability to filter somatosensory information in sensorimotor integration circuits was observed after the same 20-minute motor training task, when this was preceded with spinal manipulation of the subjects' dysfunctional cervical joints. This finding was similar to what has been previously observed after spinal manipulation alone and indicates that spinal manipulation improves gating or filtering of sensory information, an ability the CNS retains even after the motor training intervention" (Taylor & Murphy, 2010, p. 269). While no one suggests that manipulation/adjusting should replace motor training or skill acquisition, the results indicate that manipulation should significantly improve the outcomes of rehabilitation with stroke victims.

References:

1. Whithall, J., McCombe Waller, S., Silver, K. H. C., & Macko, R. F. (2000). Repetitive bilateral arm training with rhythmic auditory cueing improves motor function in chronic hemiparetic stroke. Stroke, 31 (10), 2390-2395.

2. Kleim, J. A., & Jones, T. A. (2008) Principles of experience-dependant neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(Suppl. Neuroplasticity),S225-S239.

3. Haavik Taylor, H., & Murphy, B. (2010). The effects of spinal manipulation on central integration of dual somatosensory input observed after motor training: A crossover study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 33(4), 261-272.

 

Share this

Submit to DeliciousSubmit to DiggSubmit to FacebookSubmit to Google BookmarksSubmit to StumbleuponSubmit to TechnoratiSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn

 

 

doctorspiad

AOC-ads-june-2016-02

AOC-ads-june-2016-01

More Research