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.