Stroke unit treatment. 10-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously shown that treatment in our combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit (SU) improves the outcome during the first 5 years after onset of stroke compared with that for stroke patients treated in general wards (GW). The aim of the present trial was to examine the effects of SU care after 10 years of follow-up. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with symptoms and signs of an acute stroke were allocated to the SU and 110 to GW. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between the groups. The outcome after 10 years was measured by the proportion of patients at home, the proportion of patients in an institution, the mortality, and the functional state as assessed by the Barthel Index, in which a Barthel Index score of >/=60 was classified as independent or partly independent and a score of >/=95 was classified as independent. RESULTS: After 10 years, 21 (19.1%) of the patients randomized to the SU and 9 (8.2%) of the patients randomized to the GW were at home (P=0.0184). Eighty-three (75.5%) of the patients from the SU and 96 (87.3%) of the patients from the GW were dead (P=0.0082), and 6 (5.4%) and 5 (4.5%), respectively, were in an institution (eg, nursing home; NS). Twenty-two (20.0%) of the SU patients and 9 (8. 2%) of the GW patients had a Barthel Index score of >/=60 (P=0.0118), and 14 (12.7%) and 6 (5.4%), respectively, had a score of >/=95 (P=0.0606). CONCLUSIONS: For the first time it has been shown that SU care improves survival and functional state and increases the proportion of patients able to live at home 10 years after their stroke. Treatment in combined acute and rehabilitation SU seems to have important long-term effects on outcome for stroke patients.

Treatment in a combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit: which aspects are most important?

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously shown that treatment of acute stroke patients in our stroke unit (SU) compared with treatment in general ward (GWs) improves short- and long-term survival and functional outcome and increases the possibility of earlier discharge to home. The aim of the present study was to identify the differences in treatment between the SU and the GW and to assess which aspects of the SU care which were most responsible for the better outcome. METHODS: Of the 220 patients included in our trial, only 206 were actually treated (SU, 102 patients; GW, 104 patients). For these patients, we identified the differences in the treatment and the consequences of the treatment. We analyzed the factors that we were able to measure and their association with the outcome, discharge to home within 6 weeks. RESULTS: Characteristic features in our SU were teamwork, staff education, functional training, and integrated physiotherapy and nursing. Other treatment factors significantly different in the SU from the GW were shorter time to start of the systematic mobilization/training and increased use of oxygen, heparin, intravenous saline solutions, and antipyretics. Consequences of the treatment seem to be less variation in diastolic and systolic blood pressure (BP), avoiding the lowest diastolic BP, and lowering the levels of glucose and temperature in the SU group compared with the GW group. Univariate analyses showed that all these factors except the level of glucose were significantly associated with discharge to home within 6 weeks. In the final multivariate Cox regression model, shorter time to start of the mobilization/training and stabilized diastolic BP were independent factors significantly associated with discharge to home within 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Shorter time to start of mobilization/training was the most important factor associated with discharge to home, followed by stabilized diastolic BP, indicating that these factors probably were important in the SU treatment. The effects of characteristic features of an SU, such as a specially trained staff, teamwork, and involvement of relatives, were not possible to measure. Such factors might be more important than those actually measured.

Stroke unit treatment improves long-term quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously shown that treatment of acute stroke patients in the combined acute and rehabilitation stroke unit in our hospital improves survival and functional outcome compared with treatment in general wards. The primary aim of the present trial was to examine whether the treatment in our stroke unit had an effect on different aspects of quality of life (QoL) for stroke patients 5 years after the onset of stroke. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with symptoms and signs of an acute stroke were allocated to the stroke unit and 110 to general wards. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The patients alive after 5 years were assessed by the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP) and the Frenchay Activities Index (FAI), which were the scales used as primary outcome measures for QoL. As secondary outcome measures we used a global score for the NHP and a simple visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: After 5 years, 45 of the patients treated in the stroke unit and 32 of those treated in general wards were alive. All surviving patients were assessed by the FAI. Thirty-seven (82.2%) of the stroke unit patients and 25 (78.1%) of the general wards patients were assessed by the NHP; 38 (84.4%) and 28 (87.5%), respectively, were assessed by the VAS. Patients treated in the stroke unit had a higher score on the FAI (P=0.0142). Assessment with the NHP showed better results in the stroke unit group for the dimensions of energy (P=0.0323), physical mobility (P=0.0415), emotional reactions (P=0.0290), social isolation (P=0.0089), and sleep (P=0.0436), although there was no difference in pain (P=0.3186). The global NHP score and VAS score also showed significantly better results in the stroke unit group (NHP, P<0.01; VAS, P<0.001). Patients who were independent in activities of daily living had significantly better QoL assessed by these scales than patients who were dependent. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows for the first time that stroke unit care improves different aspects of long-term QoL for stroke patients.

Stroke unit treatment. Long-term effects.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We have previously shown that treatment in our combined acute and rehabilitation Stroke Unit improves outcome during the first year after onset of stroke compared with stroke patients treated in general wards. The aim of the present trial was to examine the long-term effects of the stroke unit care. METHODS: In a randomized controlled trial, 110 patients with symptoms and signs of an acute stroke were allocated to the Stroke Unit and 110 to general wards. No significant differences existed in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The outcome after 5 years was measured by the proportion of patients at home, the proportion of patients in an institution, the mortality, and the functional state assessed by Barthel Index. RESULTS: After 5 years, 38 (34.5%) of the patients randomized to the Stroke Unit and 20 (18.2%) of the patients randomized to the general wards were at home (P = .006). Sixty-five (59.1%) of the patients from the Stroke Unit and 78 (70.9%) of the patients from the general wards were dead (P = .041), while 7 (6.4%) and 12 (10.9%), respectively, were in an institution (e.g., nursing home) (P = NS). Functional state was significantly better for patients treated in the Stroke Unit. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time it is shown that stroke unit care improves long-term survival and functional state and increases the proportion of patients able to live at home 5 years after the stroke. Combined acute and rehabilitation stroke units appear to be an effective way of organizing treatment for acute stroke patients.

Benefit of a stroke unit: a randomized controlled trial.

In a randomized controlled trial we compared the clinical outcome of acute stroke patients, 110 of whom were allocated to treatment in a stroke unit and 110 to treatment in general medical wards. No significant difference existed between these groups with regard to sex, age, marital status, medical history, or functional impairment on admission. Outcome was measured at 6 and 52 weeks after the stroke by the proportion of patients at home, the proportion of patients in an institution, the mortality, and the functional state. After 6 weeks 56.4% of the patients randomized to the stroke unit and 32.7% of the patients randomized to the general medical wards were at home (p = 0.0004), and after 52 weeks 62.7% and 44.6%, respectively, were at home (p = 0.002). After 6 weeks 36.3% of the patients from the stroke unit and 50.0% from the general medical wards were in an institution (p = 0.02); after 52 weeks 12.7% and 22.7%, respectively, were institutionalized (p = 0.016). After 6 weeks mortality was 7.3% for the stroke unit group and 17.3% for the general medical wards group (p = 0.027). After 52 weeks mortality was 24.6% for the stroke unit group and 32.7% for the general medical wards group (difference not significant). Functional state was significantly better for patients treated in the stroke unit after both 6 and 52 weeks. We conclude that care of patients with acute stroke in a stroke unit improves clinical outcome compared with treatment in general medical wards.