Search

Objectives: To explore the effect of environmental enrichment within an acute stroke unit on how and when patients undertake activities, and the amount of staff assistance provided, compared with a control environment (no enrichment). Design: This is a substudy of a controlled before–after observational study. Setting: The study was conducted in an Australian acute stroke unit. Participants: The study included stroke patients admitted to (1) control and (2) environmental enrichment period. Intervention: The control group received standard therapy and nursing care, which was delivered one-on-one in the participants' bedroom or a communal gym. The enriched group received stimulating resources and communal areas for mealtimes, socializing and group activities. Furthermore, participants and families were encouraged to increase patient activity outside therapy hours. Main measures: Behavioral mapping was performed every 10 minutes between 7.30 a.m. and 7.30 p.m. on weekdays and weekends to estimate activity levels. We compared activity levels during specified time periods, nature of activities observed and amount of staff assistance provided during patient activities across both groups. Results: Higher activity levels in the enriched group (n = 30, mean age 76.7 ± 12.1) occurred during periods of scheduled communal activity (P < 0.001), weekday non-scheduled activity (P = 0.007) and weekends (P = 0.018) when compared to the control group (n = 30, mean age 76.0 ± 12.8), but no differences were observed on weekdays after 5 p.m. (P = 0.324). The enriched group spent more time on upper limb (P < 0.001), communal socializing (P < 0.001), listening (P = 0.007) and iPad activities (P = 0.002). No difference in total staff assistance during activities was observed (P = 0.055). Conclusion: Communal activities and environmental resources were important contributors to greater activity within the enriched acute stroke unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Intravenous tenecteplase increases reperfusion in patients with salvageable brain tissue on perfusion imaging and might have advantages over alteplase as a thrombolytic for ischaemic stroke. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of tenecteplase versus alteplase on clinical outcomes in patients selected by use of perfusion imaging., Methods: This international, multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, clinical non-inferiority trial enrolled patients from 35 hospitals in eight countries. Participants were aged 18 years or older, within 4·5 h of ischaemic stroke onset or last known well, were not being considered for endovascular thrombectomy, and met target mismatch criteria on brain perfusion imaging. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by use of a centralised web server with randomly permuted blocks to intravenous tenecteplase (0·25 mg/kg) or alteplase (0·90 mg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients without disability (modified Rankin Scale 0-1) at 3 months, assessed via masked review in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. We aimed to recruit 832 participants to yield 90% power (one-sided alpha=0·025) to detect a risk difference of 0·08, with an absolute non-inferiority margin of -0·03. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12613000243718, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT Number 2015-002657-36, and it is completed., Findings: Recruitment ceased early following the announcement of other trial results showing non-inferiority of tenecteplase versus alteplase. Between March 21, 2014, and Oct 20, 2023, 680 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to tenecteplase (n=339) and alteplase (n=341), all of whom were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (multiple imputation was used to account for missing primary outcome data for five patients). Protocol violations occurred in 74 participants, thus the per-protocol population comprised 601 people (295 in the tenecteplase group and 306 in the alteplase group). Participants had a median age of 74 years (IQR 63-82), baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 7 (4-11), and 260 (38%) were female. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 191 (57%) of 335 participants allocated to tenecteplase and 188 (55%) of 340 participants allocated to alteplase (standardised risk difference [SRD]=0·03 [95% CI -0·033 to 0·10], one-tailed p non-inferiority =0·031). In the per-protocol analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 173 (59%) of 295 participants allocated to tenecteplase and 171 (56%) of 306 participants allocated to alteplase (SRD 0·05 [-0·02 to 0·12], one-tailed p non-inferiority =0·01). Nine (3%) of 337 patients in the tenecteplase group and six (2%) of 340 in the alteplase group had symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (unadjusted risk difference=0·01 [95% CI -0·01 to 0·03]) and 23 (7%) of 335 and 15 (4%) of 340 died within 90 days of starting treatment (SRD 0·02 [95% CI -0·02 to 0·05])., Interpretation: The findings in our study provide further evidence to strengthen the assertion of the non-inferiority of tenecteplase to alteplase, specifically when perfusion imaging has been used to identify reperfusion-eligible stroke patients. Although non-inferiority was achieved in the per-protocol population, it was not reached in the intention-to-treat analysis, possibly due to sample size limtations. Nonetheless, large-scale implementation of perfusion CT to assist in patient selection for intravenous thrombolysis in the early time window was shown to be feasible., Funding: Australian National Health Medical Research Council; Boehringer Ingelheim., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MWP is on a Boehringer-Ingelheim Advisory Board for metalyse in stroke. FCN has received grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. AM participates on an advisory board for Boehringer Ingelheim and is a World Stroke Organisation board member. HSM reports grants from the British Heart Foundation, the Medical Research Council, the Alzheimer's Society, and the Stroke Association UK, and is the editor-in-chief of the World Stroke Organisation journal, International Journal of Stroke. HM has received speaking fees from the Indonesian Stroke Society and reports travel support for investigator meetings. TGP has received speaking fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and BMS. JFA reports consulting fees from Amgen, Medtronic, and BMS-Pfizer, reports speaking fees from Medtronic and BMS–Pfizer, reports travel support from Daiichi–Sankyo, participates on the advisory board for the WE-TRUST trial, and reports research grants from the Spanish Ministry of Science, the European Commission, and Astra Zeneca. RSG has received travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim. SA has received funding from the UK Stroke Clinical Research Network. KSB is in a spousal relationship with an employee of Boehringer Ingelheim and has received speaking fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca. All other authors report no disclosures., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)