Impact of evidence-based stroke care on patient outcomes: a multilevel analysis of an international study

Background The uptake of proven stroke treatments varies widely. We aimed to determine the association of evidence‐based processes of care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and clinical outcome of patients who participated in the HEADPOST (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial), a multicenter cluster crossover trial of lying flat versus sitting up, head positioning in acute stroke. Methods and Results Use of 8 AIS processes of care were considered: reperfusion therapy in eligible patients; acute stroke unit care; antihypertensive, antiplatelet, statin, and anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation; dysphagia assessment; and physiotherapist review. Hierarchical, mixed, logistic regression models were performed to determine associations with good outcome (modified Rankin Scale scores 0–2) at 90 days, adjusted for patient and hospital variables. Among 9485 patients with AIS, implementation of all processes of care in eligible patients, or “defect‐free” care, was associated with improved outcome (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.18–1.65) and better survival (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.62–3.09). Defect‐free stroke care was also significantly associated with excellent outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0–1) (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.04–1.43). No hospital characteristic was independently predictive of outcome. Only 1445 (15%) of eligible patients with AIS received all processes of care, with significant regional variations in overall and individual rates. Conclusions Use of evidence‐based care is associated with improved clinical outcome in AIS. Strategies are required to address regional variation in the use of proven AIS treatments

Blood Pressure Variability and Outcome in Acute Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Post-Hoc Analysis of the HeadPoST Study

The Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) is a pragmatic, international, cluster crossover randomized trial of 11,093 patients with acute stroke assigned to a lying-flat (0o) or sitting-up (head elevated ≥30o) position. This post-hoc analysis aimed to determine the association between BPV and outcomes for patients from a wide range of international clinical settings and how the association was modified by randomized head position. BPV was defined according to standard criteria with the key parameter considered the coefficient of variation (CV) of systolic BP (SBP) over 24 hours. Outcome was ordinal 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score. The association was analyzed by ordinal, logistic regression, hierarchical, mixed models with fixed intervention (lying-flat vs. sitting-up), and fixed period, random cluster, and random cluster-period, effects. 9,156 (8,324 AIS and 817 ICH; mean age 68.1 years; 39.2% women) were included in the analysis. CV of SBP had a significant linear association with unfavorable shift of mRS at 90 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.11; P=0.01). There was no heterogeneity of the association by randomized head positioning. In addition, CV of diastolic BP (DBP) (1.08, 1.03-1.12; P=0.001) over 24 hours post stroke, was significantly associated with 3-month poor outcome. The association was more apparent in sitting-up position (1.12, 1.06-1.19) compared with lying-flat position (1.03, 0.98-1.09) (P interaction = 0.005). BPV was associated with adverse stroke outcome, the magnitude of the association was greater with sitting-up head positioning in terms of DBP variability

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol

Introduction As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. Methods and analysis This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID