Search

Introduction Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) can improve outcomes following ischaemic stroke. Patient selection for MT is predominantly based on physiological and imaging parameters. We assessed whether people living with pre-stroke frailty had differing outcomes following MT. Methods We included consecutive patients undergoing MT at a UK comprehensive stroke centre. We calculated a cumulative deficits frailty index to identify pre-stroke frailty in those patients presenting directly to the centre. Frailty was defined as an index score ≥ 0.24. We assessed univariable and multivariable association between pre-stroke frailty and stroke outcomes. Our primary outcomes were modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and mortality at 90 days. Results Of 175 patients who underwent MT (2014–2018), we identified frailty in 49 (28%). Frail and non-frail patients had similar rates of thrombolysis administration, successful recanalization and onset to recanalization times. Those with pre-stroke frailty had higher 24 hour National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (12(IQR: 8–17) versus 3(IQR: 2–13); P  = 0.001); were less likely to be independent (mRS 0–2: 18% versus 61%; P  < 0.001) and more likely to die (47% versus 14%; P  < 0.001) within 90 days. Adjusting for age, baseline NIHSS and thrombolysis, frailty remained a strong, independent predictor of poor clinical outcome at 90 days (Death OR: 3.12 (95% CI: 1.32–7.4); dependency OR: 3.04 (95%CI: 1.10–8.44). Age was no longer a predictor of outcome when adjusted for frailty. Conclusion Pre-stroke frailty is prevalent in real-world patients eligible for MT and is an important predictor of poor outcomes. Routine assessment of pre-stroke frailty could help decision-making around patient selection for MT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lay involvement in implementation of research evidence into practice may include using research findings to guide individual care, as well as involvement in research processes and policy development. Little is known about the conditions required for such involvement. Aim: To assess stroke survivors’ research awareness, use of research evidence in their own care and readiness to be involved in research processes. Methods: Cross sectional survey of stroke survivors participating in population‐based stroke registers in six European centres. Results: The response rate was 74% (481/647). Reasons for participation in register research included responding to clinician request (56%) and to ‘give something back’ (19%); however, 20% were unaware that they were participating in a stroke register. Research awareness was generally low: 57% did not know the purpose of the register they had been recruited to; 73% reported not having received results from the register they took part in; 60% did not know about any research on stroke care. Few participants (7.6%) used research evidence during their consultations with a doctor. The 34% of participants who were interested in being involved in research were younger, more highly educated and already research aware. Conclusions: Across Europe, stroke survivors already participating in research appear ill informed about stroke research. Researchers, healthcare professionals and patient associations need to improve how research results are communicated to patient populations and research participants, and to raise awareness of the relationship between research evidence and increased quality of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]