Rest-Activity Rhythm Differences in Acute Rehabilitation Between Poststroke Patients and Non–Brain Disease Controls: Comparative Study

Background Circadian rhythm disruptions are a common concern for poststroke patients undergoing rehabilitation and might negatively impact their functional outcomes. Objective Our research aimed to uncover unique patterns and disruptions specific to poststroke rehabilitation patients and identify potential differences in specific rest-activity rhythm indicators when compared to inpatient controls with non–brain-related lesions, such as patients with spinal cord injuries. Methods We obtained a 7-day recording with a wearable actigraphy device from 25 poststroke patients (n=9, 36% women; median age 56, IQR 46-71) and 25 age- and gender-matched inpatient control participants (n=15, 60% women; median age 57, IQR 46.5-68.5). To assess circadian rhythm, we used a nonparametric method to calculate key rest-activity rhythm indicators—relative amplitude, interdaily stability, and intradaily variability. Relative amplitude, quantifying rest-activity rhythm amplitude while considering daily variations and unbalanced amplitudes, was calculated as the ratio of the difference between the most active 10 continuous hours and the least active 5 continuous hours to the sum of these 10 and 5 continuous hours. We also examined the clinical correlations between rest-activity rhythm indicators and delirium screening tools, such as the 4 A’s Test and the Barthel Index, which assess delirium and activities of daily living. Results Patients who had a stroke had higher least active 5-hour values compared to the control group (median 4.29, IQR 2.88-6.49 vs median 1.84, IQR 0.67-4.34; P=.008). The most active 10-hour values showed no significant differences between the groups (stroke group: median 38.92, IQR 14.60-40.87; control group: median 31.18, IQR 18.02-46.84; P=.93). The stroke group presented a lower relative amplitude compared to the control group (median 0.74, IQR 0.57-0.85 vs median 0.88, IQR 0.71-0.96; P=.009). Further analysis revealed no significant differences in other rest-activity rhythm metrics between the two groups. Among the patients who had a stroke, a negative correlation was observed between the 4 A’s Test scores and relative amplitude (ρ=–0.41; P=.045). Across all participants, positive correlations emerged between the Barthel Index scores and both interdaily stability (ρ=0.34; P=.02) and the most active 10-hour value (ρ=0.42; P=.002). Conclusions This study highlights the relevance of circadian rhythm disruptions in poststroke rehabilitation and provides insights into potential diagnostic and prognostic implications for rest-activity rhythm indicators as digital biomarkers.