Patients' age as a determinant of care received following acute stroke: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence-based care should improve acute stroke outcomes with the same magnitude of effect for stroke patients of all ages. However, there is evidence to suggest that, in some instances, older stroke patients may receive poorer quality care than younger patients.</p> <p>Our aim was to systematically review evidence of the quality of care provided to patients with acute stroke related to their age. Quality of care was determined by compliance with recommended care processes.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We systematically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, ISI Web of Knowledge, Ageline and the Cochrane Library databases to identify publications (1995-2009) that reported data on acute stroke care process indicators by patient age. Data extracted included patient demographics and process indicator compliance. Included publications were critically appraised by two independent reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool, and a comparison was made of the risk of bias according to studies' findings. The evidence base for reported process indicators was determined, and meta-analysis was undertaken for studies with sufficient similarity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nine from 163 potential studies met the inclusion criteria. Of the 56 process indicators reported, eleven indicators were evidence-based. Seven of these indicators (64%) showed significantly poorer care for older patients compared to younger ones, while younger patients received comparatively inferior care for only antihypertensive therapy at discharge. Our findings are limited by the variable methodological quality of included studies.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients' age may be a factor in the care they receive after an acute stroke. However, the possible influence of patients' age on clinicians' decision-making must be considered in terms of the many complex issues that surround the provision of optimal care for older patients with acute stroke.</p

An intervention to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term (LoTS2Care): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial

Background Despite the evidence that many stroke survivors report longer term unmet needs, the provision of longer term care is limited. To address this, we are conducting a programme of research to develop an evidence-based and replicable longer term care strategy. The developed complex intervention (named New Start), which includes needs identification, exploration of social networks and components of problem solving and self-management, was designed to improve quality of life by addressing unmet needs and increasing participation. Methods/Design A multicentre, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial designed to inform the design of a possible future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) and explore the potential clinical and cost-effectiveness of New Start. Ten stroke services across the UK will be randomised on a 1:1 basis either to implement New Start or continue with usual care only. New Start will be delivered by trained facilitators and will be offered to all stroke survivors within the services allocated to the intervention arm. Stroke survivors will be eligible for the trial if they are 4–6 months post-stroke and residing in the community. Carers (if available) will also be invited to take part. Invitation to participate will be initiated by post and outcome measures will be collected via postal questionnaires at 3, 6 and 9 months after recruitment. Outcome data relating to perceived health and disability, wellbeing and quality of life as well as unmet needs will be collected. A ‘study within a trial’ (SWAT) is planned to determine the most acceptable format in which to provide the postal questionnaires. Details of health and social care service usage will also be collected to inform the economic evaluation. The feasibility of recruiting services and stroke survivors to the trial and of collecting postal outcomes will be assessed and the potential for effectiveness will be investigated. An embedded process evaluation (reported separately) will assess implementation fidelity and explore and clarify causal assumptions regarding implementation. Discussion This feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation will allow us to gather important and detailed data regarding methodological and implementation issues to inform the design of a possible future definitive cRCT of this complex intervention. Trial Registration ISRCTN38920246. Registered 22 June 2016

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Evaluation of appendicitis risk prediction models in adults with suspected appendicitis

Background Appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency worldwide, but its diagnosis remains challenging. The aim of this study was to determine whether existing risk prediction models can reliably identify patients presenting to hospital in the UK with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain who are at low risk of appendicitis. Methods A systematic search was completed to identify all existing appendicitis risk prediction models. Models were validated using UK data from an international prospective cohort study that captured consecutive patients aged 16–45 years presenting to hospital with acute RIF in March to June 2017. The main outcome was best achievable model specificity (proportion of patients who did not have appendicitis correctly classified as low risk) whilst maintaining a failure rate below 5 per cent (proportion of patients identified as low risk who actually had appendicitis). Results Some 5345 patients across 154 UK hospitals were identified, of which two‐thirds (3613 of 5345, 67·6 per cent) were women. Women were more than twice as likely to undergo surgery with removal of a histologically normal appendix (272 of 964, 28·2 per cent) than men (120 of 993, 12·1 per cent) (relative risk 2·33, 95 per cent c.i. 1·92 to 2·84; P < 0·001). Of 15 validated risk prediction models, the Adult Appendicitis Score performed best (cut‐off score 8 or less, specificity 63·1 per cent, failure rate 3·7 per cent). The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score performed best for men (cut‐off score 2 or less, specificity 24·7 per cent, failure rate 2·4 per cent). Conclusion Women in the UK had a disproportionate risk of admission without surgical intervention and had high rates of normal appendicectomy. Risk prediction models to support shared decision‐making by identifying adults in the UK at low risk of appendicitis were identified

Self-reported long-term needs after stroke.

Development of interventions to manage patients with stroke after discharge from the hospital requires estimates of need. This study estimates the prevalence of self-reported need in community-dwelling stroke survivors across the United Kingdom

Self-reported long-term needs after stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Development of interventions to manage patients with stroke after discharge from the hospital requires estimates of need. This study estimates the prevalence of self-reported need in community-dwelling stroke survivors across the United Kingdom. METHODS: We conducted a survey of stroke survivors 1 to 5 years poststroke recruited through Medical Research Council General Practice Research Framework general practices and 2 population-based stroke registers. Levels and type of need were calculated with comparisons among sociodemographic groups, disability level, and cognitive status using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: From 1251 participants, response rates were 60% (national sample) and 78% (population registers sample) with few differences in levels of reported need between the 2 samples. Over half (51%) reported no unmet needs; among the remainder, the median number of unmet needs was 3 (range, 1 to 13). Proportions reporting unmet clinical needs ranged from 15% to 59%; 54% reported an unmet need for stroke information; 52% reported reduction in or loss of work activities, significantly more from black ethnic groups (P=0.006); 18% reported a loss in income and 31% an increase in expenses with differences by age, ethnic group, and deprivation score. In multivariable analysis, ethnicity (P=0.032) and disability (P=0.014) were associated with total number of unmet needs. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple long-term clinical and social needs remain unmet long after incident stroke. Higher levels of unmet need were reported by people with disabilities, from ethnic minority groups, and from those living in the most deprived areas. Development and testing of novel methods to meet unmet needs are required.The Stroke Survivor Needs Survey is funded by The Stroke Association; C.D.A.W. acknowledges financial support from the Department of Health through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre award to Guy's & St Thomas' National Health Services (NHS) Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London. C.D.A.W. is an NIHR Senior Investigator. A.R.R. is funded by the Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Trust Academic Health Sciences Centre Planned Activities (AHSC PA) Scheme. The South London Stroke Register is funded by the Northern & Yorkshire NHS R&D Programme in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Charity, Stanley Thomas Johnson Foundation, The Stroke Association, Department of Health Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership grant, and a National Institute for Health Research Programme Grant (RP-PG-0407-10184). The Oxford Vascular Study is funded by the UK Medical Research Council, the Dunhill Medical Trust, the Stroke Association, the Bupa Foundation, the NIHR, the Thames Valley Primary Care Research Partnership, and the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford