| 1. |
- Nguyen, Thanh N, et al.
(författare)
-
Global Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Stroke Volumes and Cerebrovascular Events: A 1-Year Follow-up.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Neurology. - 1526-632X. ; 100:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Declines in stroke admission, IV thrombolysis (IVT), and mechanical thrombectomy volumes were reported during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a paucity of data on the longer-term effect of the pandemic on stroke volumes over the course of a year and through the second wave of the pandemic. We sought to measure the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the volumes of stroke admissions, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), IVT, and mechanical thrombectomy over a 1-year period at the onset of the pandemic (March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) compared with the immediately preceding year (March 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020).We conducted a longitudinal retrospective study across 6 continents, 56 countries, and 275 stroke centers. We collected volume data for COVID-19 admissions and 4 stroke metrics: ischemic stroke admissions, ICH admissions, IVT treatments, and mechanical thrombectomy procedures. Diagnoses were identified by their ICD-10 codes or classifications in stroke databases.There were 148,895 stroke admissions in the 1 year immediately before compared with 138,453 admissions during the 1-year pandemic, representing a 7% decline (95% CI [95% CI 7.1-6.9]; p < 0.0001). ICH volumes declined from 29,585 to 28,156 (4.8% [5.1-4.6]; p < 0.0001) and IVT volume from 24,584 to 23,077 (6.1% [6.4-5.8]; p < 0.0001). Larger declines were observed at high-volume compared with low-volume centers (all p < 0.0001). There was no significant change in mechanical thrombectomy volumes (0.7% [0.6-0.9]; p = 0.49). Stroke was diagnosed in 1.3% [1.31-1.38] of 406,792 COVID-19 hospitalizations. SARS-CoV-2 infection was present in 2.9% ([2.82-2.97], 5,656/195,539) of all stroke hospitalizations.There was a global decline and shift to lower-volume centers of stroke admission volumes, ICH volumes, and IVT volumes during the 1st year of the COVID-19 pandemic compared with the prior year. Mechanical thrombectomy volumes were preserved. These results suggest preservation in the stroke care of higher severity of disease through the first pandemic year.This study is registered under NCT04934020.
|
|
| 2. |
- Berge, Eivind, et al.
(författare)
-
Methods to improve patient recruitment and retention in stroke trials
- 2016
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Stroke. - : SAGE Publications. - 1747-4930 .- 1747-4949. ; 11:6, s. 663-676
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The success of randomized-controlled stroke trials is dependent on the recruitment and retention of a sufficient number of patients, but fewer than half of all trials meet their target number of patients. Methods: We performed a search and review of the literature, and conducted a survey and workshop among 56 European stroke trialists, to identify barriers, suggest methods to improve recruitment and retention, and make a priority list of interventions that merit further evaluation. Results: The survey and workshop identified a number of barriers to patient recruitment and retention, from patients’ incapacity to consent, to handicaps that prevent patients from participation in trial-specific follow-up. Methods to improve recruitment and retention may include simple interventions with individual participants, funding of research networks, and reimbursement of new treatments by health services only when delivered within clinical trials. The literature review revealed that few methods have been formally evaluated. The top five priorities for evaluation identified in the workshop were as follows: short and illustrated patient information leaflets, nonwritten consent, reimbursement for new interventions only within a study, and monetary incentives to institutions taking part in research (for recruitment); and involvement of patient groups, remote and central follow-up, use of mobile devices, and reminders to patients about their consent to participate (for retention). Conclusions: Many interventions have been used with the aim of improving recruitment and retention of patients in stroke studies, but only a minority has been evaluated. We have identified methods that could be tested, and propose that such evaluations may be nested within on-going clinical trials.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dijkland, Simone A., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcome Prediction after Moderate and Severe Traumatic Brain Injury : External Validation of Two Established Prognostic Models in 1742 European Patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 38:10, s. 1377-1388
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The International Mission on Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) and Corticoid Randomisation After Significant Head injury (CRASH) prognostic models predict functional outcome after moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). We aimed to assess their performance in a contemporary cohort of patients across Europe. The Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) core study is a prospective, observational cohort study in patients presenting with TBI and an indication for brain computed tomography. The CENTER-TBI core cohort consists of 4509 TBI patients available for analyses from 59 centers in 18 countries across Europe and Israel. The IMPACT validation cohort included 1173 patients with GCS ≤12, age ≥14, and 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE) available. The CRASH validation cohort contained 1742 patients with GCS ≤14, age ≥16, and 14-day mortality or 6-month GOSE available. Performance of the three IMPACT and two CRASH model variants was assessed with discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve; AUC) and calibration (comparison of observed vs. predicted outcome rates). For IMPACT, model discrimination was good, with AUCs ranging between 0.77 and 0.85 in 1173 patients and between 0.80 and 0.88 in the broader CRASH selection (n = 1742). For CRASH, AUCs ranged between 0.82 and 0.88 in 1742 patients and between 0.66 and 0.80 in the stricter IMPACT selection (n = 1173). Calibration of the IMPACT and CRASH models was generally moderate, with calibration-in-the-large and calibration slopes ranging between -2.02 and 0.61 and between 0.48 and 1.39, respectively. The IMPACT and CRASH models adequately identify patients at high risk for mortality or unfavorable outcome, which supports their use in research settings and for benchmarking in the context of quality-of-care assessment.
|
|
| 4. |
- Foks, Kelly A., et al.
(författare)
-
Management of mild traumatic brain injury at the emergency department and hospital admission in Europe : A survey of 71 neurotrauma centers participating in the CENTER-TBI study
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of Neurotrauma. - : Mary Ann Liebert. - 0897-7151 .- 1557-9042. ; 34:17, s. 2529-2535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Previous studies have indicated that there is no consensus about management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) at the emergency department (ED) and during hospital admission. We aim to study variability between management policies for TBI patients at the ED and hospital ward across Europe. Centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study received questionnaires about different phases of TBI care. These questionnaires included 71 questions about TBI management at the ED and at the hospital ward. We found differences in how centers defined mTBI. For example, 40 centers (59%) defined mTBI as a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score between 13-15 and 26 (38%) as a GCS score between 14-15. At the ED various guidelines for the use of head CT in mTBI patients were used; 32 centers (49%) used national guidelines, 10 centers (15%) local guidelines and 14 centers (21%) used no guidelines at all. Also differences in indication for admission between centers were found. After ED discharge, 7 centers (10%) scheduled a routine follow-up appointment, while 38 (54%) did so only after ward admission. In conclusion, large between-center variation exists in policies for diagnostics, admission and discharge decisions in patients with mTBI at the ED and in hospital. Guidelines are not always operational in centers, and reported policies systematically diverge from what is recommended in those guidelines. The results of this study may be useful in the understanding of mTBI care in Europe and show the need for further studies on the effectiveness of different policies on outcome.
|
|
