Systematic voiding programme in adults with urinary incontinence following acute stroke: the ICONS-II RCT.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors in the acute phase, and it often presents as a new problem after stroke or, if pre-existing, worsens significantly, adding to the disability and helplessness caused by neurological deficits. New management programmes after stroke are needed to address urinary incontinence early and effectively. OBJECTIVE: The Identifying Continence OptioNs after Stroke (ICONS)-II trial aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a systematic voiding programme for urinary incontinence after stroke in hospital. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, individual-patient-randomised (1 : 1), parallel-group trial with an internal pilot. SETTING: Eighteen NHS stroke services with stroke units took part. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adult men and women with acute stroke and urinary incontinence, including those with cognitive impairment. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised to the intervention, a systematic voiding programme, or to usual care. The systematic voiding programme comprised assessment, behavioural interventions (bladder training or prompted voiding) and review. The assessment included evaluation of the need for and possible removal of an indwelling urinary catheter. The intervention began within 24 hours of recruitment and continued until discharge from the stroke unit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was severity of urinary incontinence (measured using the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire) at 3 months post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were taken at 3 and 6 months after randomisation and on discharge from the stroke unit. They included severity of urinary incontinence (at discharge and at 6 months), urinary symptoms, number of urinary tract infections, number of days indwelling urinary catheter was in situ, functional independence, quality of life, falls, mortality rate and costs. The trial statistician remained blinded until clinical effectiveness analysis was complete. RESULTS: The planned sample size was 1024 participants, with 512 allocated to each of the intervention and the usual-care groups. The internal pilot did not meet the target for recruitment and was extended to March 2020, with changes made to address low recruitment. The trial was paused in March 2020 because of COVID-19, and was later stopped, at which point 157 participants had been randomised (intervention, n = 79; usual care, n = 78). There were major issues with attrition, with 45% of the primary outcome data missing: 56% of the intervention group data and 35% of the usual-care group data. In terms of the primary outcome, patients allocated to the intervention group had a lower score for severity of urinary incontinence (higher scores indicate greater severity in urinary incontinence) than those allocated to the usual-care group, with means (standard deviations) of 8.1 (7.4) and 9.1 (7.8), respectively. LIMITATIONS: The trial was unable to recruit sufficient participants and had very high attrition, which resulted in seriously underpowered results. CONCLUSIONS: The internal pilot did not meet its target for recruitment and, despite recruitment subsequently being more promising, it was concluded that the trial was not feasible owing to the combined problems of poor recruitment, poor retention and COVID-19. The intervention group had a slightly lower score for severity of urinary incontinence at 3 months post randomisation, but this result should be interpreted with caution. FUTURE WORK: Further studies to assess the effectiveness of an intervention starting in or continuing into the community are required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14005026. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Urinary incontinence affects around half of stroke survivors. It causes embarrassment and distress, affecting patients' ability to take part in rehabilitation. It also has a major impact on families and may determine whether or not patients are able to return home. Finding the underlying cause and addressing it can prevent, cure or reduce problems. Doing this in a systematic way for everyone with incontinence problems as early as possible after the stroke, while they are still in hospital, may work best. We also wanted to avoid using catheters in the bladder to drain the urine away, as these are often unnecessary and can cause urinary tract infections. This study aimed to test whether or not continence problems and the use of urinary catheters could be reduced if everyone with incontinence was fully assessed and given the right management and support early after hospital admission. We also wanted to find out if the benefits outweighed the costs. We planned to involve 1024 men and women with incontinence from 18 stroke units in the study, with 512 people receiving the intervention and 512 receiving usual care. However, the trial was paused because of COVID-19, at which time only 157 participants had been recruited. When we were thinking about restarting the study and looked at its progress, we found that not enough people had agreed to take part and, of those who had agreed, many had not returned their outcome questionnaires. This indicated that the trial was not feasible and should not restart. We could not make any firm conclusions about whether or not the intervention worked, as not enough people were involved. We found that stays in hospital after stroke are shorter than they were in the past. This suggests that future studies investigating ways of treating incontinence should consider interventions with management and support for incontinence that continue after patients leave the hospital.

Cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19 in the UK: a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: A new syndrome of vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) has emerged as a rare side-effect of vaccination against COVID-19. Cerebral venous thrombosis is the most common manifestation of this syndrome but, to our knowledge, has not previously been described in detail. We aimed to document the features of post-vaccination cerebral venous thrombosis with and without VITT and to assess whether VITT is associated with poorer outcomes. METHODS: For this multicentre cohort study, clinicians were asked to submit all cases in which COVID-19 vaccination preceded the onset of cerebral venous thrombosis, regardless of the type of vaccine, interval between vaccine and onset of cerebral venous thrombosis symptoms, or blood test results. We collected clinical characteristics, laboratory results (including the results of tests for anti-platelet factor 4 antibodies where available), and radiological features at hospital admission of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis after vaccination against COVID-19, with no exclusion criteria. We defined cerebral venous thrombosis cases as VITT-associated if the lowest platelet count recorded during admission was below 150 × 109 per L and, if the D-dimer was measured, the highest value recorded was greater than 2000 µg/L. We compared the VITT and non-VITT groups for the proportion of patients who had died or were dependent on others to help them with their activities of daily living (modified Rankin score 3-6) at the end of hospital admission (the primary outcome of the study). The VITT group were also compared with a large cohort of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis described in the International Study on Cerebral Vein and Dural Sinus Thrombosis. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and May 20, 2021, we received data on 99 patients from collaborators in 43 hospitals across the UK. Four patients were excluded because they did not have definitive evidence of cerebral venous thrombosis on imaging. Of the remaining 95 patients, 70 had VITT and 25 did not. The median age of the VITT group (47 years, IQR 32-55) was lower than in the non-VITT group (57 years; 41-62; p=0·0045). Patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis had more intracranial veins thrombosed (median three, IQR 2-4) than non-VITT patients (two, 2-3; p=0·041) and more frequently had extracranial thrombosis (31 [44%] of 70 patients) compared with non-VITT patients (one [4%] of 25 patients; p=0·0003). The primary outcome of death or dependency occurred more frequently in patients with VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis (33 [47%] of 70 patients) compared with the non-VITT control group (four [16%] of 25 patients; p=0·0061). This adverse outcome was less frequent in patients with VITT who received non-heparin anticoagulants (18 [36%] of 50 patients) compared with those who did not (15 [75%] of 20 patients; p=0·0031), and in those who received intravenous immunoglobulin (22 [40%] of 55 patients) compared with those who did not (11 [73%] of 15 patients; p=0·022). INTERPRETATION: Cerebral venous thrombosis is more severe in the context of VITT. Non-heparin anticoagulants and immunoglobulin treatment might improve outcomes of VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis. Since existing criteria excluded some patients with otherwise typical VITT-associated cerebral venous thrombosis, we propose new diagnostic criteria that are more appropriate. FUNDING: None.

Impact of COVID-19 on stroke admissions, treatments, and outcomes at a comprehensive stroke centre in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has changed routine clinical practice worldwide with major impacts on the provision of care and treatment for stroke patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included all patients admitted to the Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, UK, with a stroke or transient ischaemic attack between March 15th and April 14th, 2020 (COVID). Patient demographics, characteristics of the stroke, treatment details and logistics were compared with patients admitted in the corresponding weeks in the year before (2019). RESULTS: There was a 39.5% (n = 101 vs n = 167) reduction in admissions in the COVID cohort compared with 2019 with more severe strokes (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) 7 vs 4, p = 0.02), and fewer strokes with no visible acute pathology (21.8 vs 37.1%, p = 0.01) on computed tomography. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of thrombolysis (10.9 vs 13.2%, p = 0.72) and/or thrombectomy (5.9 vs 4.8%, p = 0.90) and no statistically significant difference in time from stroke onset to arrival at hospital (734 vs 576 min, p = 0.34), door-to-needle time for thrombolysis (54 vs 64 min, p = 0.43) and door-to-thrombectomy time (181 vs 445 min, p = 0.72). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly higher in the COVID year (10.9 vs 8.9%, p = 0.77). None of the 7 stroke patients infected with COVID-19 died. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of stroke admissions fell, and stroke severity increased. There was no statistically significant change in the delivery of thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy and no increase in mortality.

Characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 associated stroke: a UK multicentre case-control study.

OBJECTIVE: We set out to determine which characteristics and outcomes of stroke are associated with COVID-19. METHODS: This case-control study included patients admitted with stroke to 13 hospitals in England and Scotland between 9 March and 5 July 2020. We collected data on 86 strokes (81 ischaemic strokes and 5 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients with evidence of COVID-19 at the time of stroke onset (cases). They were compared with 1384 strokes (1193 ischaemic strokes and 191 intracerebral haemorrhages) in patients admitted during the same time period who never had evidence of COVID-19 (controls). In addition, the whole group of stroke admissions, including another 37 patients who appeared to have developed COVID-19 after their stroke, were included in two logistic regression analyses examining which features were independently associated with COVID-19 status and with inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Cases with ischaemic stroke were more likely than ischaemic controls to occur in Asians (18.8% vs 6.7%, p<0.0002), were more likely to involve multiple large vessel occlusions (17.9% vs 8.1%, p<0.03), were more severe (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 8 vs 5, p<0.002), were associated with higher D-dimer levels (p<0.01) and were associated with more severe disability on discharge (median modified Rankin Scale score 4 vs 3, p<0.0001) and inpatient death (19.8% vs 6.9%, p<0.0001). Recurrence of stroke during the patient's admission was rare in cases and controls (2.3% vs 1.0%, NS). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that COVID-19 may be an important modifier of the onset, characteristics and outcome of acute ischaemic stroke.