Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST)- sitting-up vs lying-flat positioning of patients with acute stroke: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background Positioning a patient lying-flat in the acute phase of ischaemic stroke may improve recovery and reduce disability, but such a possibility has not been formally tested in a randomised trial. We therefore initiated the Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) to determine the effects of lying-flat (0°) compared with sitting-up (≥30°) head positioning in the first 24 hours of hospital admission for patients with acute stroke. Methods/Design We plan to conduct an international, cluster randomised, crossover, open, blinded outcome-assessed clinical trial involving 140 study hospitals (clusters) with established acute stroke care programs. Each hospital will be randomly assigned to sequential policies of lying-flat (0°) or sitting-up (≥30°) head position as a ‘business as usual’ stroke care policy during the first 24 hours of admittance. Each hospital is required to recruit 60 consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), and all patients with acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) (an estimated average of 10), in the first randomised head position policy before crossing over to the second head position policy with a similar recruitment target. After collection of in-hospital clinical and management data and 7-day outcomes, central trained blinded assessors will conduct a telephone disability assessment with the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days. The primary outcome for analysis is a shift (defined as improvement) in death or disability on this scale. For a cluster size of 60 patients with AIS per intervention and with various assumptions including an intracluster correlation coefficient of 0.03, a sample size of 16,800 patients at 140 centres will provide 90 % power (α 0.05) to detect at least a 16 % relative improvement (shift) in an ordinal logistic regression analysis of the primary outcome. The treatment effect will also be assessed in all patients with ICH who are recruited during each treatment study period. Discussion HeadPoST is a large international clinical trial in which we will rigorously evaluate the effects of different head positioning in patients with acute stroke. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02162017 (date of registration: 27 April 2014); ANZCTR identifier: ACTRN12614000483651 (date of registration: 9 May 2014). Protocol version and date: version 2.2, 19 June 2014

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

Dysphagia screening and risks of pneumonia and adverse outcomes after acute stroke: An international multicenter study.

BACKGROUND:Dysphagia is associated with aspiration pneumonia after stroke. Data are limited on the influences of dysphagia screen and assessment in clinical practice. AIMS:To determine associations between a "brief" screen and "detailed" assessment of dysphagia on clinical outcomes in acute stroke patients. METHODS:A prospective cohort study analyzed retrospectively using data from a multicenter, cluster cross-over, randomized controlled trial (Head Positioning in Acute Stroke Trial [HeadPoST]) from 114 hospitals in nine countries. HeadPoST included 11,093 acute stroke patients randomized to lying-flat or sitting-up head positioning. Herein, we report predefined secondary analyses of the association of dysphagia screening and assessment and clinical outcomes of pneumonia and death or disability (modified Rankin scale 3-6) at 90 days. RESULTS:Overall, 8784 (79.2%) and 3917 (35.3%) patients were screened and assessed for dysphagia, respectively, but the frequency and timing for each varied widely across regions. Neither use of a screen nor an assessment for dysphagia was associated with the outcomes, but their results were compared to "screen-pass" patients, those who failed had higher risks of pneumonia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.00, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.18-4.10) and death or disability (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.41-1.95). Similar results were evidence for the results of an assessment for dysphagia. Subsequent feeding restrictions were related to higher risk of pneumonia in patients failed dysphagia screen or assessment (aOR = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.72-9.54). CONCLUSIONS:Failing a dysphagia screen is associated with increased risks of pneumonia and poor clinical outcome after acute stroke. Further studies concentrate on determining the effective subsequent feeding actions are needed to improve patient outcomes

Statistical analysis plan for the Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST): an international cluster cross-over randomised trial

Background There is evidence to indicate that the lying flat head position increases cerebral blood flow and oxygenation in patients with acute ischemic stroke, but how these physiological effects translate into clinical outcomes is uncertain. The Head Position in Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) aims to determine the comparative effectiveness of lying flat (0°) compared to sitting up (≥30°) head positioning, initiated within 24 hours of hospital admission for patients with acute stroke. Design An international, pragmatic, cluster randomised, crossover, open, blinded outcome assessed clinical trial. Each hospital with an established acute stroke unit (cluster) site was required to recruit up to 140 consecutive cases of acute stroke (one phase of head positioning before immediately crossing over to the other phase of head positioning), including both acute ischaemic stroke and intracerebral haemorrhage, in each randomised head position as a ‘business as usual’ policy. Objective To outline in detail the predetermined statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the study. Methods All accumulated data will be reviewed and formally assessed. Information regarding baseline characteristics of patients, their process of care and management will be outlined, and for each item, statistically relevant descriptive elements will be described. For the trial outcomes, the most appropriate statistical comparisons are described. Results A SAP was developed that is transparent, verifiable, and predetermined before completion of data collection. Conclusions We developed a predetermined SAP for HeadPoST to avoid analysis bias arising from prior knowledge of the findings, in order to reliably quantify the benefits and harms of lying flat versus sitting up early after the onset of acute stroke. </p

Influence of Including Patients with Premorbid Disability in Acute Stroke Trials: The HeadPoST Experience.

BACKGROUND: Patients with premorbid functional impairment are generally excluded from acute stroke trials. We aimed to determine the impact of including such patients in the Head Positioning in acute Stroke Trial (HeadPoST) and early additional impairment on outcomes. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of HeadPoST, an international, cluster-randomized crossover trial of lying-flat versus sitting-up head positioning in acute stroke. Associations of early additional impairment, defined as change in modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores from premorbid levels (estimated at baseline) to Day 7 ("early ΔmRS"), and poor outcome (mRS score 3-6) at Day 90 were determined with generalized linear mixed model. Heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect was tested according to premorbid mRS scores 0-1 versus 2-5. RESULTS: Of 8,285 patients (38.9% female, mean age 68 ± 13 years) with complete data, there were 1,984 (23.9%) with premorbid functional impairment (mRS 2-5). A significant linear association was evident for early ∆mRS and poor outcome (per 1-point increase in ΔmRS, adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 1.14-1.27; p < 0.0001). Patients with greater premorbid functional impairment were less likely to develop additional impairment, but their risk of poor 90-day outcome significantly increased with increasing (worse) premorbid mRS scores (linear trend p < 0.0001). There was no heterogeneity of the trial treatment effect by level of premorbid function. CONCLUSIONS: Early poststroke functional impairment that exceeded premorbid levels was associated with worse 90-day outcome, and this association increased with greater premorbid functional impairment. Yet, including premorbid impaired patients in the HeadPoST did not materially affect the subsequent treatment effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: HeadPoST is registered at http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162017)

Cluster-Randomized, Crossover Trial of Head Positioning in Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: The role of supine positioning after acute stroke in improving cerebral blood flow and the countervailing risk of aspiration pneumonia have led to variation in head positioning in clinical practice. We wanted to determine whether outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke could be improved by positioning the patient to be lying flat (i.e., fully supine with the back horizontal and the face upwards) during treatment to increase cerebral perfusion. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial conducted in nine countries, we assigned 11,093 patients with acute stroke (85% of the strokes were ischemic) to receive care in either a lying-flat position or a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees, according to the randomization assignment of the hospital to which they were admitted; the designated position was initiated soon after hospital admission and was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was degree of disability at 90 days, as assessed with the use of the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability and a score of 6 indicating death). RESULTS: The median interval between the onset of stroke symptoms and the initiation of the assigned position was 14 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 35). Patients in the lying-flat group were less likely than patients in the sitting-up group to maintain the position for 24 hours (87% vs. 95%, P<0.001). In a proportional-odds model, there was no significant shift in the distribution of 90-day disability outcomes on the global modified Rankin scale between patients in the lying-flat group and patients in the sitting-up group (unadjusted odds ratio for a difference in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin scale in the lying-flat group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.10; P=0.84). Mortality within 90 days was 7.3% among the patients in the lying-flat group and 7.4% among the patients in the sitting-up group (P=0.83). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of serious adverse events, including pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Disability outcomes after acute stroke did not differ significantly between patients assigned to a lying-flat position for 24 hours and patients assigned to a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees for 24 hours. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; HeadPoST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02162017 .)