Rehabilitation after traumatic brain injury: A survey in 70 European neurotrauma centres participating in the CENTER-TBI study

Objective: To describe variation in structural and process characteristics of acute in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care for patients with traumatic brain injury across Europe.Design: Survey study, of neurotrauma centres.Methods: A 14-item survey about in-hospital rehabilitation and referral to post-acute care was sent to 71 neurotrauma centres participating in a European multicentre study (CENTER-TBI). The questionnaire was developed based on literature and expert opinion and was pilot-tested before sending out to the centres.Results: Seventy (99%) centres in 20 countries completed the survey. The included centres were predominately academic level I trauma centres. Among the 70 centres, a multidisciplinary rehabilitation team can be consulted at 41% (n = 29) of the intensive care units and 49% (n = 34) of the wards. Only 13 (19%) centres used rehabilitation guidelines in patients with traumatic brain injury. Age was reported as a major determinant of referral decisions in 32 (46%) centres, with younger patients usually referred to specialized rehabilitation centres, and patients = 65 years also referred to nursing homes or local hospitals.Conclusion: Substantial variation exists in structural and process characteristics of in-hospital acute rehabilitation and referral to post-acute rehabilitation facilities among neurotrauma centres across Europe

Highlighting the Role of Biomarkers of Inflammation in the Diagnosis and Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by continuous pain that is often accompanied by sensory, motor, vasomotor, sudomotor, and trophic disturbances. If left untreated, it can have a significant impact on the quality of life of patients. The diagnosis of CRPS is currently based on a set of relatively subjective clinical criteria: the New International Association for the Study of Pain clinical diagnostic criteria for CRPS. There are still no objective laboratory tests to diagnose CRPS and there is a great need for simple, objective, and easily measurable biomarkers in the diagnosis and management of this disease. In this review, we discuss the role of inflammation in the multi-mechanism pathophysiology of CRPS and highlight the application of potential biomarkers of inflammation in the diagnosis and management of this disease

Pharmacologic treatment of complex regional pain syndrome I: A conceptual framework

Pain may be a leading symptom in complex regional pain syndrome type I (CRPS I) and may hinder functional recovery In this case, a pharmacotherapeutic approach to pain should be part of the individually tailored interdisciplinary treatment regimen. However, operational criteria for determining which patient may profit from what therapeutic intervention are lacking. This article discusses a conceptual framework in which the rapid progress made in basic pain research may contribute to the clinical management of pain in CRPS L First, recent insights in the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying RP I are reviewed. CRPS I is considered a neuropathic pain syndrome with a mixed and time-dependent profile of a regional inflammation, sensitization of primary somatosensory afferents (peripheral sensitization), and sensitization of spinal neurons (central sensitization). The dominant mechanisms may vary across individual patients with different time profiles. Second, a model was constructed in which signs and symptoms in an individual patient are related to these mechanisms, Finally, relating the clinical picture to the underlying pathophysiology may help determine the pharmacotherapeutic approach for an individual patient. Pharmacologic options are discussed in this context. The presented framework does not aim to provide an evidence-based treatment algorithm, ready to be used in at daily clinical practice; rather it offers a crude. first step toward a mechanism-based pharmacotherapy in CRPS 1, in an effort to shift from a mainly empirical treatment paradigm toward theory-driven treatment procedures

Struck by stroke: A pilot study exploring quality of life and coping patterns in younger patients and spouses

So far, research on quality of life after stroke has focused mainly on elderly patients. This study is targeted at younger stroke patients and their partners, aiming to evaluate stroke impact, as related to coping strategy. For our pilot study, eight patients who had suffered a stroke and four partners completed the Impact of Event Scale questionnaire. The mean age was 47.6 years in patients and 44.5 years in partners. The patients' level of activities of daily life was assessed using the Barthel Index. They were then interviewed to obtain information with respect to stroke impact and coping. The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life procedure was carried out to measure quality of life, and stroke impact was quantified using Visual Analogue Scales. On average, patients scored 19.25 on the Barthel Index. Quality of life had deteriorated by 20.1% in patients, whereas partners did not show a decline in quality of life. However, well-being was inversely correlated among patients and partners. Accommodative coping was positively correlated with quality of life in both patients and partners. Conversely, assimilation was negatively related to quality of life in patients

International Standard Set of Patient-Centered Outcome Measures After Stroke

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Value-based health care aims to bring together patients and health systems to maximize the ratio of quality over cost. To enable assessment of healthcare value in stroke management, an international standard set of patient-centered stroke outcome measures was defined for use in a variety of healthcare settings. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was implemented with an international expert panel representing patients, advocates, and clinical specialists in stroke outcomes, stroke registers, global health, epidemiology, and rehabilitation to reach consensus on the preferred outcome measures, included populations, and baseline risk adjustment variables. RESULTS: Patients presenting to a hospital with ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage were selected as the target population for these recommendations, with the inclusion of transient ischemic attacks optional. Outcome categories recommended for assessment were survival and disease control, acute complications, and patient-reported outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes proposed for assessment at 90 days were pain, mood, feeding, selfcare, mobility, communication, cognitive functioning, social participation, ability to return to usual activities, and health-related quality of life, with mobility, feeding, selfcare, and communication also collected at discharge. One instrument was able to collect most patient-reported subdomains (9/16, 56%). Minimum data collection for risk adjustment included patient demographics, premorbid functioning, stroke type and severity, vascular and systemic risk factors, and specific treatment/care-related factors. CONCLUSIONS: A consensus stroke measure Standard Set was developed as a simple, pragmatic method to increase the value of stroke care. The set should be validated in practice when used for monitoring and comparisons across different care settings