Orthostatic intolerance following hip arthroplasty: incidence, risk factors and effect on length of stay: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early postoperative mobilisation is important for enhanced recovery, but can be hindered by orthostatic intolerance, characterised by dizziness, nausea, vomiting, feeling of heat, blurred vision and ultimately syncope. Although the incidence of orthostatic intolerance following total hip arthroplasty has been identified, few studies have yet investigated potential risk factors for developing orthostatic intolerance after hip arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of orthostatic intolerance on the first postoperative day after total hip arthroplasty, potential predisposing risk factors for developing orthostatic intolerance and its effect on length of stay. DESIGN: A prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary hospital, Auckland, New Zealand, May to September 2015. PATIENTS: One hundred and seventeen consecutive patients undergoing unilateral total hip arthroplasty. Patients were excluded if they had revision surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of orthostatic intolerance during mobilisation on the first postoperative day. Significant peri-operative risk factors for developing orthostatic intolerance were identified using logistic regression. Length of stay was compared between orthostatic intolerant and orthostatic tolerant patients using the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: On the first postoperative day, 22% of patients failed mobilisation due to orthostatic intolerance. Factors independently associated with orthostatic intolerance were female sex; OR (95% CI), 3.11 (1.01 to 9.57), postoperative use of gabapentin; OR 3.55 (1.24 to 10.15) and high peak pain levels (≥5/10) during mobilisation; OR 4.05 (1.30 to 12.61). Overall, 78% of patients were correctly identified. The model was more accurate at predicting those who would not get orthostatic intolerance (89% correct), compared with those who did have orthostatic intolerance (39% correct). Length of stay was longer in patients with orthostatic intolerance (P = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Orthostatic intolerance is common after total hip arthroplasty. Optimising pain control prior to mobilisation and limiting gabapentin use may modify the risk of developing postoperative orthostatic intolerance. Although personalised recovery pathways appear attractive, at present, the ability to predict at-risk individuals is still limited.

Poststroke Physical Activity Levels No Higher in Rehabilitation than in the Acute Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Returning to physical activity is a common goal for stroke survivors undergoing rehabilitation, and higher levels of activity have been linked to better gait and greater independence in activities of daily living. Our aim was to determine if inpatient rehabilitation settings promoted higher levels of physical activity in stroke survivors than an acute stroke unit setting. METHODS: Stroke survivors were recruited from the inpatient rehabilitation wards of 4 different hospitals in southern Sweden and from the acute stroke unit at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm. Participants were observed for 1 minute every 10 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. At each observation, the person's highest level of physical activity, location, and other people present were recorded. RESULTS: We collected data from 190 stroke survivors (104 rehabilitation, 86 acute). Contrary to our hypothesis, there was no significant difference between the groups in the amount of time spent in moderate-to-high physical activity (rehabilitation median 24%, acute median 23%; adjusted P = .74). Compared to those in the acute setting, participants in the rehabilitation setting spent less time lying in bed, more time sitting supported out of bed, less time in their bedroom, and more time with a therapist (all adjusted P < .001). CONCLUSION: In the context of stroke, the inpatient rehabilitation environment does not appear to promote higher levels of physical activity than the acute hospital environment.

Sedentary behaviour and physical activity of people with stroke in rehabilitation hospitals.

Background. Sedentary behaviour is associated with health risks, independent of physical activity. This study aimed to investigate patterns of sedentary behaviour and physical activity among stroke survivors in rehabilitation hospitals. Methods. Stroke survivors admitted to four Swedish hospital-based rehabilitation units were recruited ≥7 days since stroke onset and their activity was measured using behavioural mapping. Sedentary behaviour was defined as lying down or sitting supported. Results. 104 patients were observed (53% men). Participants spent an average of 74% (standard deviation, SD 21%) of the observed day in sedentary activities. Continuous sedentary bouts of ≥1 hour represented 44% (SD 32%) of the observed day. A higher proportion (30%, SD 7%) of participants were physically active between 9:00 AM and 12:30 PM, compared to the rest of the observed day (23%, SD 6%, P < 0.0005). Patients had higher odds of being physically active in the hall (odds ratio, OR 1.7, P = 0.001) than in the therapy area. Conclusions. The time stroke survivors spend in stroke rehabilitation units may not be used in the most efficient way to promote maximal recovery. Interventions to promote reduced sedentary time could help improve outcome and these should be tested in clinical trials.

A mapping study on physical activity in stroke rehabilitation: establishing the baseline.

OBJECTIVE: To establish physical activity level, environment and social interaction in routine stroke rehabilitation practice. DESIGN: Prospective observational study using behavioural mapping. METHODS: Patients at 4 hospital stroke rehabilitation units in Sweden at least 7 days post-stroke were observed over 1 week-day at 10 min intervals between 08.00 h and 17.00 h. At each observation, physical activity, location and people present were ascertained. RESULTS: Patients (n = 104) had a mean age of 70.3 (standard deviation (SD) 14.4) years. Median time since stroke was 19 (range 7-142) days. Patients were alone for 52% of the day, during this time 7% was spent in standing/walking activities. While with a physiotherapist patients were standing/walking for 43% of the time. Using median regression it was found that the median percentage of time spent in standing/walking was associated with gait independence and age. Gait independence increased the median percentage of time spent in standing/walking by 16.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 12.1-20.9, p < 0.001), while an increase of 1 year of age reduced the median percentage of time spent in standing/walking by 0.16% (95% CI -0.31 to -0.01, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients had low levels of physical activity and social interaction. This study suggests that there is a huge potential to increase patients' activity level and augment social interaction above current levels.

Does evidence really matter? Professionals' opinions on the practice of early mobilization after stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Early mobilization after stroke may be important for a good outcome and it is currently recommended in a range of international guidelines. The evidence base, however, is limited and clear definitions of what constitutes early mobilization are lacking. AIMS: To explore stroke care professionals' opinions about (1) when after stroke, first mobilization should take place, (2) whether early mobilization may affect patients' final outcome, and (3) what level of evidence they require to be convinced that early mobilization is beneficial. METHODS: A nine-item questionnaire was used to interview stroke care professionals during a conference in Sydney, Australia. RESULTS: Among 202 professionals interviewed, 40% were in favor of mobilizing both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke patients within 24 hours of stroke onset. There was no clear agreement about the optimal time point beyond 24 hours. Most professionals thought that patients' final motor outcome (76%), cognitive outcome (57%), and risk of depression (75%) depends on being mobilized early. Only 19% required a large randomized controlled trial or a systematic review to be convinced of benefit. CONCLUSION: The spread in opinion reflects the absence of clear guidelines and knowledge in this important area of stroke recovery and rehabilitation, which suggests further research is required.

'Better wear out sheets than shoes': a survey of 202 stroke professionals' early mobilisation practices and concerns.

BACKGROUND: Stroke unit care improves the outcome for patients. One component responsible for this may be that patients are mobilised earlier and more intensively. An ongoing randomised controlled trial is investigating the potential benefits of early mobilisation, but currently there is limited evidence for the practice. Therefore, current practices may be driven by historical precedent and/or clinical opinion, and varying approaches to mobilisation are likely. This study aims to examine different health professionals' concerns regarding early mobilisation in acute stroke. In this study, early mobilisation was defined as frequent out of bed activities within the first 24 h after stroke onset. METHODS: A nine-item anonymous questionnaire exploring benefits and harms with early mobilisation after stroke was used during interviews of stroke care professionals attending the annual Australasian stroke conference in 2008. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 202 professionals, representing 38% of all conference attendees. Sixty-five per cent were females, 50% under 40-years old, 46% worked in acute stroke and 31% in rehabilitation. Thirty-five per cent were nurses, 26% medical doctors, 19% physiotherapists and 12% occupational therapists. Two-thirds had <10-years experience with stroke. Sixty per cent of the surveyed professionals had concerns about early mobilisation and there were significantly more professionals concerned about early mobilisation for haemorrhagic (59%) than ischaemic (23%) stroke patients. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that most clinicians had concerns in relation to early mobilisation of stroke patients and more clinicians had concerns for haemorrhagic than for ischaemic stroke. The evidence underlying these concerns is shallow.