Published online before print April 26, 2007, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.106.480871
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Stroke. 2007;38:1886.)
© 2007 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Stroke Units in Their Natural Habitat
Systematic Review of Observational Studies
From the Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland.
Correspondence to Prof Peter Langhorne, Academic Section of Geriatric Medicine, Level 3, University Block, Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK. E-mail p.langhorne{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk
Background and Purpose— Within clinical trials, stroke patients allocated to receive organized inpatient (stroke unit) care are more likely to survive, return home, and regain independence than those allocated to conventional care. However, there are concerns that the benefits seen in clinical trials may not be replicated in routine practice. We carried out a systematic review of observational studies of stroke unit implementation.
Methods— We searched (up to January 2006) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, British Nursing Index, Cochrane Stroke Group register, and recent conference abstracts for observational studies that compared the outcomes of stroke patients managed in a stroke unit versus non–stroke unit care. We excluded studies that did not describe either matching for baseline prognostic factors or adjustment for case-mix characteristics. The primary outcome was death within 1 year. We also recorded poor outcome (death, institutional care, or dependency). Data analysis used the generic inverse variance method in Revman 4.2. Where raw data were provided, effect sizes and variances were calculated accordingly. We used a random-effects model and explored for sources of heterogeneity.
Results— We identified 72 articles describing stroke unit outcomes; 25 were eligible for review; and 18 provided data on case fatality or poor outcome. Stroke unit care was associated with significantly reduced odds of death (odds ratio=0.79, 95% CI=0.73 to 0.86; P<0.00001) and of death or poor outcome (odds ratio=0.87, 95% CI=0.80 to 0.95; P=0.002) within 1 year of stroke. Results were complicated by significant heterogeneity (P<0.05), mainly in single-center studies.
Conclusions— Although these results are complicated by potential bias and heterogeneity, the observed benefit associated with stroke unit care in routine practice is comparable to that in clinical trials.
Key Words: stroke unit • stroke outcome • systematic review • meta-analysis
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  A Terent, K Asplund, B Farahmand, K M Henriksson, B Norrving, B Stegmayr, P-O Wester, K H Asberg, S Asberg, and for the Riks-Stroke Collaboration Stroke unit care revisited: who benefits the most? A cohort study of 105 043 patients in Riks-Stroke, the Swedish Stroke Register J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, August 1, 2009; 80(8): 881 - 887. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Indredavik Stroke Unit Care Is Beneficial Both for the Patient and for the Health Service and Should Be Widely Implemented Stroke, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 1 - 2. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Gattellari, J. Worthington, B. Jalaludin, and M. Mohsin Stroke Unit Care in a Real-Life Setting: Can Results From Randomized Controlled Trials Be Translated Into Every-Day Clinical Practice? An Observational Study of Hospital Data in a Large Australian Population Stroke, January 1, 2009; 40(1): 10 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. Lyons, A. G. Rudd, and C. Alvaro Advances in Health Policy 2007 Stroke, February 1, 2008; 39(2): 264 - 267. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|