Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Tuesday, December 12, 2017

Safety and Costs of Stroke Unit Admission for Select Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage Patients

Notice the word; 'SELECT'.  Once again you have to have the correct stroke. Rather than figuring out how ALL stroke survivors can get fully recovered our fucking lazy researchers take the easy route.
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1941874417712158
First Published June 2, 2017 Research Article



There are limited data to guide intensive care unit (ICU) versus dedicated stroke unit (SU) admission for intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients. We hypothesized select patients can be safely cared for in SU versus ICU at lower costs.

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with predefined minor ICH (≤20 cm3, supratentorial, no coagulopathy) receiving care in either an ICU or an SU. Multiple linear regression and inverse probability weighting were used to adjust for differences in patient characteristics and nonrandom ICU versus SU assignment. The primary outcome was poor functional status at discharge (modified Rankin score [mRS] ≥3). Secondary outcomes included complications, discharge disposition, hospital length of stay, and direct inpatient costs.

The study population included 104 patients (41 admitted to the ICU and 63 admitted to the SU). After controlling for differences in baseline characteristics, there were no differences in poor functional outcome at discharge (93% vs 85%, P = .26) or in mean mRS (2.9 vs 3.0, P = .73). Similarly, there were no differences in the rates of complications (6% vs 10%, P = .44), discharged dead or to a skilled nursing facility (8% vs 13%, P = .59), or direct patient costs (US$7100 vs US$6200, P = .33). Median length of stay was significantly longer in the ICU group (5 vs 4 days, P = .01).

This study revealed a shorter length of stay but no large differences in functional outcome, safety, or cost among patients with minor ICH admitted to a dedicated SU compared to an ICU.

No comments:

Post a Comment