2
|
Sonneville R, Mazighi M, Collet M, Gayat E, Degos V, Duranteau J, Grégoire C, Sharshar T, Naim G, Cortier D, Jost PH, Foucrier A, Bagate F, de Montmollin E, Papin G, Magalhaes E, Guidet B, Ben Hadj Salem O, Benghanem S, le Guennec L, Delpierre E, Legriel S, Megarbane B, Toumert K, Tran M, Geri G, Monchi M, Bodiguel E, Mariotte E, Demoule A, Zarka J, Diehl JL, Roux D, Barré E, Tanaka S, Osman D, Pasquier P, Lamara F, Crassard I, Boursin P, Ruckly S, Staiquly Q, Timsit JF, Woimant F. One-Year Outcomes in Patients With Acute Stroke Requiring Mechanical Ventilation. Stroke 2023; 54:2328-2337. [PMID: 37497675 DOI: 10.1161/strokeaha.123.042910] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Accepted: 06/22/2023] [Indexed: 07/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-term outcomes of patients with severe stroke remain poorly documented. We aimed to characterize one-year outcomes of patients with stroke requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS We conducted a prospective multicenter cohort study in 33 ICUs in France (2017-2019) on patients with consecutive strokes requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours. Outcomes were collected via telephone interviews by an independent research assistant. The primary end point was poor functional outcome, defined by a modified Rankin Scale score of 4 to 6 at 1 year. Multivariable mixed models investigated variables associated with the primary end point. Secondary end points included quality of life, activities of daily living, and anxiety and depression in 1-year survivors. RESULTS Among the 364 patients included, 244 patients (66.5% [95% CI, 61.7%-71.3%]) had a poor functional outcome, including 190 deaths (52.2%). After adjustment for non-neurological organ failure, age ≥70 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.38 [95% CI, 1.26-4.49]), Charlson comorbidity index ≥2 (OR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.16-3.49]), a score on the Glasgow Coma Scale <8 at ICU admission (OR, 3.43 [95% CI, 1.98-5.96]), stroke subtype (intracerebral hemorrhage: OR, 2.44 [95% CI, 1.29-4.63] versus ischemic stroke: OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.06-4.00] versus subarachnoid hemorrhage: reference) remained independently associated with poor functional outcome. In contrast, a time between stroke diagnosis and initiation of mechanical ventilation >1 day was protective (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.33-0.94]). A sensitivity analysis conducted after exclusion of patients with early decisions of withholding/withdrawal of care yielded similar results. We observed persistent physical and psychological problems at 1 year in >50% of survivors. CONCLUSIONS In patients with severe stroke requiring mechanical ventilation, several ICU admission variables may inform caregivers, patients, and their families on post-ICU trajectories and functional outcomes. The burden of persistent sequelae at 1 year reinforces the need for a personalized, multi-disciplinary, prolonged follow-up of these patients after ICU discharge. REGISTRATION URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS gov; Unique identifier: NCT03335995.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romain Sonneville
- Université de Paris, INSERM UMR 1148, F-75018 Paris, France (R.S., M. Mazighi)
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, F75018 Paris, France (R.S., G.P., F.L., J.-F.T.)
| | - Mikael Mazighi
- Université de Paris, INSERM UMR 1148, F-75018 Paris, France (R.S., M. Mazighi)
- APHP, Department of Neurology, Lariboisière University Hospital, Paris, France (M. Mazighi)
- APHP, Department of Neuroradiology, Rothschild Hospital Foundation, Paris, France (M. Mazighi, P.B.)
| | - Magalie Collet
- APHP.Nord, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DMU Parabol, Université de Paris, France (M.C., E.G.)
- UMR-S 942 "MASCOT," Inserm, Paris, France (M.C., E.G.)
| | - Etienne Gayat
- APHP.Nord, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DMU Parabol, Université de Paris, France (M.C., E.G.)
- UMR-S 942 "MASCOT," Inserm, Paris, France (M.C., E.G.)
| | - Vincent Degos
- APHP, Department of Critical Care, Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital and Sorbonne Université, Paris, France (V.D.)
- GRC ARPE, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France (V.D.)
| | - Jacques Duranteau
- APHP, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Bicêtre University Hospitals, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France (J.D.)
| | - Charles Grégoire
- Department of Intensive Care, Rothschild Hospital Foundation, Paris, France (C.G.)
| | - Tarek Sharshar
- Department of Neuroanesthesiology and Intensive Care, Saint Anne Hospital, Paris, France (T.S., G.N.)
| | - Giulia Naim
- Department of Neuroanesthesiology and Intensive Care, Saint Anne Hospital, Paris, France (T.S., G.N.)
| | - David Cortier
- Department of Intensive Care, Foch Hospital, Paris, France (D.C.)
| | - Paul-Henri Jost
- APHP, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Henri Mondor University Hospital, Créteil, France (P.-H.J.)
| | - Arnaud Foucrier
- APHP, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Beaujon University Hospital, Clichy, France (A.F.)
| | - François Bagate
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Henri Mondor University Hospital and Université de Paris Est Créteil, France (F.B.)
| | - Etienne de Montmollin
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Delafontaine Hospital, Saint-Denis, France (E.d.M.)
| | - Gregory Papin
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, F75018 Paris, France (R.S., G.P., F.L., J.-F.T.)
| | - Eric Magalhaes
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Sud Francilien Hospital, Corbeil, France (E.M.)
| | - Bertrand Guidet
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Saint Antoine University Hospital, Paris, France (B.G.)
| | - Omar Ben Hadj Salem
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Poissy-Saint Germain en Laye Hospital, Paris, France (O.B.H.S.)
| | - Sarah Benghanem
- APHP, Medical ICU, Cochin University Hospital and Université Paris Cité, France (S.B.)
| | - Loïc le Guennec
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, La Pitié-Salpêtrière University Hospital and Sorbonne Université, Paris, France (L.l.G.)
| | - Eric Delpierre
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Meaux Hospital, France (E.D.)
| | - Stephane Legriel
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Versailles Hospital, Le Chesnay, and Paris-Saclay University UVSQ, INSERM, CESP, Villejuif, France (S.L.)
| | - Bruno Megarbane
- APHP, Department of Medical and Toxicological Critical Care, Lariboisière Hospital and INSERM UMRS-1144, Université Paris Cité, France (B.M.)
| | - Karim Toumert
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Gonesse Hospital, France (K.T.)
| | - Marc Tran
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Paris Saint-Joseph Hospital, Paris, France (M.T.)
| | - Guillaume Geri
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Ambroise Paré University Hospital, Boulogne, France (G.G.)
| | - Mehran Monchi
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Melun-Senart Hospital, France (M. Monchi)
| | - Eric Bodiguel
- APHP, Emergency Department, Georges Pompidou University Hospital, Paris, France (E. Bodiguel)
| | - Eric Mariotte
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Saint Louis University Hospital, Paris, France (E.M.)
| | - Alexandre Demoule
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine (R3S) and Sorbonne Université, INSERM, UMRS1158, Pitié-Salpétrière University Hospital, Paris, France (A.D.)
| | - Jonathan Zarka
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Lagny Hospital, France (J.Z.)
| | - Jean-Luc Diehl
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Georges Pompidou University Hospital and INSERM UMR_S 1140 Paris, France (J.-L.D.)
| | - Damien Roux
- APHP, Medico-Surgical ICU, Louis Mourier University Hospital, Colombes and Université Paris Cité, IAME, INSERM, UMR1137, France (D.R.)
| | - Eric Barré
- Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Mantes-la-Jolie Hospital, France (E. Barré)
| | - Sebastien Tanaka
- APHP, Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital and INSERM UMR 1188 DéTROI, Université de la Réunion, Saint-Denis de la Réunion, France (S.T.)
| | - David Osman
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Bicêtre University Hospital, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France (D.O.)
| | - Pierre Pasquier
- Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Percy Military Training Hospital, Clamart, France (P.P.)
| | - Fariza Lamara
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, F75018 Paris, France (R.S., G.P., F.L., J.-F.T.)
| | | | - Perrine Boursin
- APHP, Department of Neuroradiology, Rothschild Hospital Foundation, Paris, France (M. Mazighi, P.B.)
| | - Stéphane Ruckly
- Department of Biostatistics, ICUREsearch, Paris, France (S.R., Q.S.)
| | - Quentin Staiquly
- Department of Biostatistics, ICUREsearch, Paris, France (S.R., Q.S.)
| | - Jean-François Timsit
- APHP, Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Bichat-Claude Bernard University Hospital, F75018 Paris, France (R.S., G.P., F.L., J.-F.T.)
| | - France Woimant
- Agence Régionale de Santé Ile-de-France, Paris, France (I.C., F.W.)
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dziewas R, Stellato R, van der Tweel I, Walther E, Werner CJ, Braun T, Citerio G, Jandl M, Friedrichs M, Nötzel K, Vosko MR, Mistry S, Hamdy S, McGowan S, Warnecke T, Zwittag P, Bath PM. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation for early decannulation in tracheotomised patients with neurogenic dysphagia after stroke (PHAST-TRAC): a prospective, single-blinded, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17:849-859. [PMID: 30170898 DOI: 10.1016/s1474-4422(18)30255-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2018] [Revised: 06/18/2018] [Accepted: 06/28/2018] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Dysphagia after stroke is common, especially in severely affected patients who have had a tracheotomy. In a pilot trial, pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) improved swallowing function in this group of patients. We aimed to replicate and extend this single-centre experience. METHODS We did a prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial across nine sites (seven acute care hospitals, two rehabilitation facilities) in Germany, Austria, and Italy. Patients with recent stroke who required tracheotomy were randomly assigned to receive 3 days of either PES or sham treatment (1:1). All patients had the stimulation catheter inserted; sham treatment was applied by connecting the PES base station to a simulator box instead of the catheter. Randomisation was done via a computerised interactive system (stratified by site) in blocks of four patients per site. Patients and investigators applying PES were not masked. The primary endpoint was assessed by a separate investigator at each site who was masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was readiness for decannulation 24-72 h after treatment, assessed using fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing and based on a standardised protocol, including absence of massive pooling of saliva, presence of one or more spontaneous swallows, and presence of at least minimum laryngeal sensation. We planned a sequential statistical analysis of superiority for the primary endpoint. Interim analyses were to be done after primary outcome data were available for 50 patients (futility), 70 patients, and every additional ten patients thereafter, up to 140 patients. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN18137204. FINDINGS From May 29, 2015, to July 5, 2017, of 81 patients assessed, 69 patients from nine sites were randomly assigned to receive PES (n=35) or sham (n=34) treatment. Median onset to randomisation time was 28 days (IQR 19-41; PES 28 [20-49]; sham 28 [18-40]). The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board recommended that the trial was stopped early for efficacy after 70 patients had been recruited and primary endpoint data for 69 patients were available. This decision was approved by the steering committee. More patients were ready for decannulation in the PES group (17 [49%] of 35 patients) than in the sham group (three [9%] of 34 patients; odds ratio [OR] 7·00 [95% CI 2·41-19·88]; p=0·0008). Adverse events were reported in 24 (69%) patients in the PES group and 24 (71%) patients in the sham group. The number of patients with at least one serious adverse event did not differ between the groups (ten [29%] patients in the PES group vs eight [23%] patients in the sham group; OR 1·30 [0·44-3·83]; p=0·7851). Seven (20%) patients in the PES group and three (9%) patients in the sham group died during the study period (OR 2·58 [0·61-10·97]; p=0·3059). None of the deaths or serious adverse events were judged to be related to PES. INTERPRETATION In patients with stroke and subsequent tracheotomy, PES increased the proportion of patients who were ready for decannulation in this study population, many of whom received PES within a month of their stroke. Future trials should confirm whether PES is beneficial in tracheotomised patients who receive stimulation similarly early after stroke and explore its effects in other cohorts. FUNDING Phagenesis Ltd.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rainer Dziewas
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
| | - Rebecca Stellato
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ingeborg van der Tweel
- Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ernst Walther
- Zentrum für Neurologie und Neurorehabilitation, Schön Klinik Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Cornelius J Werner
- Section Interdisciplinary Geriatrics, Department of Neurology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
| | - Tobias Braun
- Neurologische Klinik, University Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbH, Giessen, Germany
| | - Giuseppe Citerio
- School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milan-Bicocca, Milan, Italy; Neurointensive Care, San Gerardo Hospital, ASST-Monza, Italy
| | - Mitja Jandl
- Isar-Amper-Klinikum, Klinikum München Ost, Haar, Germany
| | | | - Katja Nötzel
- Neurologie, Vivantes Klinikum Neukölln, Berlin, Germany
| | - Milan R Vosko
- Klinik für Neurologie 2, Kepler Universitäts Klinikum, Linz, Austria
| | - Satish Mistry
- Department for Clinical Research, Phagenesis Limited, Manchester, UK
| | - Shaheen Hamdy
- Centre for Gastrointestinal Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester and the Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Susan McGowan
- National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Therapy and Rehabilitation Services London, London, UK
| | - Tobias Warnecke
- Department of Neurology, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
| | - Paul Zwittag
- Klinik für Hals- Nasen- und Ohrenheilkunde, Kepler Universitäts Klinikum, Linz, Austria
| | - Philip M Bath
- Stroke Trials Unit, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Le ST, Josephson SA, Puttgen HA, Gibson L, Guterman EL, Leicester HM, Graf CL, Probasco JC. Many Neurology Readmissions Are Nonpreventable. Neurohospitalist 2016; 7:61-69. [PMID: 28400898 DOI: 10.1177/1941874416674409] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Reducing unplanned hospital readmissions has become a national focus due to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) penalties for hospitals with high rates. A first step in reducing unplanned readmission is to understand which patients are at high risk for readmission, which readmissions are planned, and how well planned readmissions are currently captured in comparison to patient-level chart review. METHODS We examined all 5455 inpatient neurology admissions over a 2-year period to University of California San Francisco Medical Center and Johns Hopkins Hospital via chart review. We collected information such as patient age, procedure codes, diagnosis codes, all-payer diagnosis-related group, observed length of stay (oLOS), and expected length of stay. We performed multivariate logistic modeling to determine predictors of readmission. Discharge summaries were reviewed for evidence that a subsequent readmission was planned. RESULTS A total of 353 (6.5%) discharges were readmitted within 30 days. Fifty-five (15.6%) of the 353 readmissions were planned, most often for a neurosurgical procedure (41.8%) or immunotherapy (23.6%). Only 8 of these readmissions would have been classified as planned using current CMS methodology. Patient age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01 for each 10-year increase, P < .001) and estimated length of stay (OR = 1.04, P = .002) were associated with a greater likelihood of readmission, whereas index admission oLOS was not. CONCLUSIONS Many neurologic readmissions are planned; however, these are often classified by current CMS methodology as unplanned and penalized accordingly. Modifications of the CMS lists for potentially planned neurological and neurosurgical procedures and for acute discharge neurologic diagnoses should be considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sidney T Le
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Hans A Puttgen
- Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Lorrie Gibson
- Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Elan L Guterman
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | | | - Carla L Graf
- University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - John C Probasco
- Department of Neurology, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| |
Collapse
|