Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke

Well fuck, still no protocols on this and obviously still doing nothing on first day interventions.  My 31 ideas on hyperacute therapy I'm going to insist my doctor give me during the first week,
even without further research or real clinical trials. I will take the chance that more benefits accrue than danger by using these. But run them by your doctor. No knowledge of any of them and you need to fire that doctor immediately, practicing medicine with no knowledge.  Does no one in stroke read/implement any research suggesting interventions in the first day?  Or is everyone in stroke so fucking lazy that they are waiting for SOMEONE ELSE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM?

Like your 10 million yearly stroke survivors? Have your patients solve their own problems?

Very early versus delayed mobilisation after stroke

Cochrane Systematic Review - Intervention Version published: 16 October 2018 see what's new

• New search

View article information

• Peter Langhorne
• Janice M Collier
• Patricia J Bate
• Matthew NT Thuy
• Julie Bernhardt

View authors' declarations of interest

Abstract

available in

English

Español

Français

Background

Very early mobilisation (VEM) is performed in some stroke units and recommended in some acute stroke clinical guidelines. However, it is unclear whether very early mobilisation independently improves outcome after stroke.

Objectives

To determine whether very early mobilisation (started as soon as possible, and no later than 48 hours after onset of symptoms) in people with acute stroke improves recovery (primarily the proportion of independent survivors) compared with usual care.

Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 31 July 2017). We also systematically searched 19 electronic databases including; CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 7 in the Cochrane Library (searched July 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1950 to August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to August 2017), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to August 2017) , PsycINFO Ovid (1806 to August 2017), AMED Ovid (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), SPORTDiscus EBSCO (1830 to August 2017). We searched relevant ongoing trials and research registers (searched December 2016), the Chinese medical database, Wanfangdata (searched to November 2016), and reference lists, and contacted researchers in the field.

Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with acute stroke, comparing an intervention group that started out‐of‐bed mobilisation within 48 hours of stroke, and aimed to reduce time‐to‐first mobilisation, with or without an increase in the amount or frequency (or both) of mobilisation activities, with usual care, where time‐to‐first mobilisation was commenced later.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and applied the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was death or poor outcome (dependency or institutionalisation) at the end of scheduled follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included death, dependency, institutionalisation, activities of daily living (ADL), extended ADL, quality of life, walking ability, complications (e.g. deep vein thrombosis), patient mood, and length of hospital stay. We also analysed outcomes at three‐month follow‐up.

Main results

We included nine RCTs with 2958 participants; one trial provided most of the information (2104 participants). The median (range) delay to starting mobilisation after stroke onset was 18.5 (13.1 to 43) hours in the VEM group and 33.3 (22.5 to 71.5) hours in the usual care group. The median difference within trials was 12.7 (4 to 45.6) hours. Other differences in intervention varied between trials; in five trials, the VEM group were also reported to have received more time in therapy, or more mobilisation activity.
Primary outcome data were available for 2542 of 2618 (97.1%) participants randomized and followed up for a median of three months. VEM probably led to similar or slightly more deaths and participants who had a poor outcome, compared with delayed mobilisation (51% versus 49%; odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 1.26; P = 0.36; 8 trials; moderate‐quality evidence). Death occurred in 7% of participants who received delayed mobilisation, and 8.5% of participants who received VEM (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.70; P = 0.11; 8 trials, 2570 participants; moderate‐quality evidence), and the effects on experiencing any complication were unclear (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; P = 0.18; 7 trials, 2778 participants; low‐quality evidence). Analysis using outcomes collected only at three‐month follow‐up did not alter the conclusions.
The mean ADL score (measured at end of follow‐up, with the 20‐point Barthel Index) was higher in those who received VEM compared with the usual care group (mean difference (MD) 1.94, 95% CI 0.75 to 3.13, P = 0.001; 8 trials, 9 comparisons, 2630/2904 participants (90.6%); low‐quality evidence), but there was substantial heterogeneity (93%). Effect sizes were smaller for outcomes collected at three‐month follow‐up, rather than later.
The mean length of stay was shorter in those who received VEM compared with the usual care group (MD ‐1.44, 95% CI ‐2.28 to ‐0.60, P = 0.0008; 8 trials, 2532/2618 participants (96.7%); low‐quality evidence). Confidence in the answer was limited by the variable definitions of length of stay. The other secondary outcome analyses (institutionalisation, extended activities of daily living, quality of life, walking ability, patient mood) were limited by lack of data.
Sensitivity analyses by trial quality: none of the outcome conclusions were altered if we restricted analyses to trials with the lowest risk of bias (based on method of randomization, allocation concealment, completeness of follow‐up, and blinding of final assessment), or information about the amount of mobilisation.
Sensitivity analysis by intervention characteristics: analyses restricted to trials where the mean VEM time‐to‐first mobilisation was less than 24 hours, showed an odds of death of 1.35 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.83; P = 0.06; I² = 25%; 5 trials). Analyses restricted to the trials that clearly reported a more prolonged out‐of‐bed activity showed a similar primary outcome (OR 1.14; 0.96 to 1.35; P = 0.13; I² = 28%; 5 trials), and odds of death (OR 1.27; 0.93 to 1.73; P = 0.13; I² = 0%; 4 trials) to the main analysis.
Exploratory network meta‐analysis (NMA): we were unable to analyze by the amount of therapy, but low‐quality evidence indicated that time‐to‐first mobilisation at around 24 hours was associated with the lowest odds of death or poor outcome, compared with earlier or later mobilisation.

Authors' conclusions

VEM, which usually involved first mobilisation within 24 hours of stroke onset, did not increase the number of people who survived or made a good recovery after their stroke. VEM may have reduced the length of stay in hospital by about one day, but this was based on low‐quality evidence. Based on the potential hazards reported in the single largest RCT, the sensitivity analysis of trials commencing mobilisation within 24 hours, and the NMA, there was concern that VEM commencing within 24 hours may carry an increased risk, at least in some people with stroke. Given the uncertainty around these effect estimates, more detailed research is still required.(Well, write up a protocol for what is currently known. Waiting for perfection allows massive numbers of neurons to continue dying every day.)