...
首页> 外文期刊>Stroke: A Journal of Cerebral Circulation >Randomized controlled study of stroke unit care versus stroke team care in different stroke subtypes.
【24h】

Randomized controlled study of stroke unit care versus stroke team care in different stroke subtypes.

机译:不同卒中亚型中风单位护理与中风团队护理的随机对照研究。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The benefits of stroke unit management may vary according to stroke subtype. A post hoc analysis of the influence of stroke subtype on stroke unit effectiveness was undertaken by using prospective data collected in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Two hundred sixty-seven patients with moderately severe ischemic stroke (164 with large-vessel infarcts and 103 with lacunar infarcts) were randomly allocated to treatment in stroke units or in general medical wards with specialist stroke team support. Mortality, institutionalization, neurological, functional, and quality-of-life scores and resource use were assessed at 3 and again at 12 months after stroke onset. An intention-to-treat analysis was undertaken, and logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent effect of stroke unit intervention. RESULTS: Stroke team-supported management was associated with higher mortality (odds ratio [OR] 4.9, 95% CI 1.3 to 18.6) and higher mortality or institutionalization (OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.1 to 7.4) at 3 months (OR 3.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.7) and at 1 year (OR 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.2) in patients with large-vessel infarcts. In contrast, there were no significant differences in outcome in patients with lacunar strokes managed in the stroke unit or by the stroke team. In patients with lacunar strokes, stroke unit care was associated with a longer length of hospital stay (18 versus 13.5 days for stroke unit care versus stroke team care, respectively; P<0.01) and significantly greater use of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke units improve the outcome in patients with large-vessel infarcts but not in those with lacunar syndromes. For lacunar strokes, stroke unit management may be associated with higher initial health costs for equivalent benefit.
机译:背景和目的:卒中单元管理的益处可能因卒中亚型而异。使用随机对照试验中收集的前瞻性数据对卒中亚型对卒中单位有效性的影响进行事后分析。方法:将267例中度重度缺血性卒中患者(164例大血管梗塞和103例腔隙性梗塞)随机分配到卒中病房或在普通卒中团队的支持下在普通病房进行治疗。在卒中发生后的第3个月和第12个月再次评估死亡率,机构化,神经系统,功能和生活质量得分以及资源使用情况。进行了意向性治疗分析,并使用逻辑回归分析评估了卒中单元干预的独立效果。结果:卒中团队支持的管理与3个月时的较高死亡率(赔率[OR] 4.9,95%CI 1.3至18.6)和较高的死亡率或机构化(OR 2.9,95%CI 1.1至7.4)相关(OR 3.6, 95%CI为1.5至8.7)和1年时(OR 2.8,95%CI为1.3至6.2)。相反,在卒中单位或卒中小组管理的腔隙性卒中患者的预后方面没有显着差异。在腔隙性卒中患者中,卒中单元护理与住院时间更长相关(卒中单元护理与卒中团队护理分别为18天和13.5天; P <0.01),并且治疗的使用显着增加。结论:中风单位可改善大血管梗死患者的预后,但不能改善腔隙综合征的患者的预后。对于腔隙性卒中,卒中单元管理可能与较高的初始医疗费用相关联,以获得同等的收益。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号