Cargando…

A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register

BACKGROUND: Stroke care and outcomes have improved significantly over the past decades. It is unclear if patients who had a stroke in hospital (in-hospital stroke, IHS) experienced similar improvements to those who were admitted with stroke (community-onset stroke, COS). METHODS: Data from the South...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Emmett, Eva S., Douiri, Abdel, Marshall, Iain J., Wolfe, Charles D. A., Rudd, Anthony G., Bhalla, Ajay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30789929
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212396
_version_ 1783396919246061568
author Emmett, Eva S.
Douiri, Abdel
Marshall, Iain J.
Wolfe, Charles D. A.
Rudd, Anthony G.
Bhalla, Ajay
author_facet Emmett, Eva S.
Douiri, Abdel
Marshall, Iain J.
Wolfe, Charles D. A.
Rudd, Anthony G.
Bhalla, Ajay
author_sort Emmett, Eva S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Stroke care and outcomes have improved significantly over the past decades. It is unclear if patients who had a stroke in hospital (in-hospital stroke, IHS) experienced similar improvements to those who were admitted with stroke (community-onset stroke, COS). METHODS: Data from the South London Stroke Register were analysed to estimate trends in processes of care and outcomes across three cohorts (1995–2001, 2002–2008, 2009–2015). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for each cohort. Associations between patient location at stroke onset, processes of care, and outcomes were investigated using multiple logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 5,119 patients admitted to hospital and registered between 1995 and 2015, 552(10.8%) had IHS. Brain imaging rates increased from 92.4%(COS) and 78.3%(IHS) in 1995–2001 to 100% for COS and IHS in 2009–2015. Rates of stroke unit admission rose but remained lower for IHS (1995–2001: 32.2%(COS) vs. 12.4%(IHS), 2002–2008: 77.1%(COS) vs. 50.0%(IHS), 2009–2015: 86.3%(COS) vs. 65.4%(IHS)). After adjusting for patient characteristics and case-mix, IHS was independently associated with lower rates of stroke unit admission in each cohort (1995–2001: OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29–0.82, 2002–2008: 0.29, 0.18–0.45, 2009–2015: 0.22, 0.11–0.43). In 2009–2015, thrombolysis rates were lower for ischaemic IHS (17.8%(COS) vs. 13.8%(IHS)). Despite a decline, in-hospital mortality remained significantly higher after IHS in 2009–2015 (13.7%(COS) vs. 26.7%(IHS)). Five-year mortality rates declined for COS from 58.9%(1995–2001) to 35.2%(2009–2015) and for IHS from 80.8%(1995–2001) to 51.1%(2009–2015). In multivariable analysis, IHS was associated with higher mortality over five years post-stroke in each cohort (1995–2001: HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.03–1.57, 2002–2008: 1.24, 0.99–1.55, 2009–2016: 1.39, 0.95–2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant improvements for IHS patients similar to those for COS patients, rates of stroke unit admission and thrombolysis remain lower, and short- and long-term outcomes poorer after IHS. Factors preventing IHS patients from entering evidence-based stroke-specific hospital pathways in a timely fashion need further investigation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6383917
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63839172019-03-09 A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register Emmett, Eva S. Douiri, Abdel Marshall, Iain J. Wolfe, Charles D. A. Rudd, Anthony G. Bhalla, Ajay PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Stroke care and outcomes have improved significantly over the past decades. It is unclear if patients who had a stroke in hospital (in-hospital stroke, IHS) experienced similar improvements to those who were admitted with stroke (community-onset stroke, COS). METHODS: Data from the South London Stroke Register were analysed to estimate trends in processes of care and outcomes across three cohorts (1995–2001, 2002–2008, 2009–2015). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for each cohort. Associations between patient location at stroke onset, processes of care, and outcomes were investigated using multiple logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 5,119 patients admitted to hospital and registered between 1995 and 2015, 552(10.8%) had IHS. Brain imaging rates increased from 92.4%(COS) and 78.3%(IHS) in 1995–2001 to 100% for COS and IHS in 2009–2015. Rates of stroke unit admission rose but remained lower for IHS (1995–2001: 32.2%(COS) vs. 12.4%(IHS), 2002–2008: 77.1%(COS) vs. 50.0%(IHS), 2009–2015: 86.3%(COS) vs. 65.4%(IHS)). After adjusting for patient characteristics and case-mix, IHS was independently associated with lower rates of stroke unit admission in each cohort (1995–2001: OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.29–0.82, 2002–2008: 0.29, 0.18–0.45, 2009–2015: 0.22, 0.11–0.43). In 2009–2015, thrombolysis rates were lower for ischaemic IHS (17.8%(COS) vs. 13.8%(IHS)). Despite a decline, in-hospital mortality remained significantly higher after IHS in 2009–2015 (13.7%(COS) vs. 26.7%(IHS)). Five-year mortality rates declined for COS from 58.9%(1995–2001) to 35.2%(2009–2015) and for IHS from 80.8%(1995–2001) to 51.1%(2009–2015). In multivariable analysis, IHS was associated with higher mortality over five years post-stroke in each cohort (1995–2001: HR 1.27, 95%CI 1.03–1.57, 2002–2008: 1.24, 0.99–1.55, 2009–2016: 1.39, 0.95–2.04). CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant improvements for IHS patients similar to those for COS patients, rates of stroke unit admission and thrombolysis remain lower, and short- and long-term outcomes poorer after IHS. Factors preventing IHS patients from entering evidence-based stroke-specific hospital pathways in a timely fashion need further investigation. Public Library of Science 2019-02-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6383917/ /pubmed/30789929 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212396 Text en © 2019 Emmett et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Emmett, Eva S.
Douiri, Abdel
Marshall, Iain J.
Wolfe, Charles D. A.
Rudd, Anthony G.
Bhalla, Ajay
A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title_full A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title_fullStr A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title_short A comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – The South London Stroke Register
title_sort comparison of trends in stroke care and outcomes between in-hospital and community-onset stroke – the south london stroke register
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6383917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30789929
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212396
work_keys_str_mv AT emmettevas acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT douiriabdel acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT marshalliainj acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT wolfecharlesda acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT ruddanthonyg acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT bhallaajay acomparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT emmettevas comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT douiriabdel comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT marshalliainj comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT wolfecharlesda comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT ruddanthonyg comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister
AT bhallaajay comparisonoftrendsinstrokecareandoutcomesbetweeninhospitalandcommunityonsetstrokethesouthlondonstrokeregister