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.

Thursday, June 18, 2020

Longer term stroke risk in intracerebral haemorrhage survivors

Useless. NOTHING on how to prevent this from happening.  A hell of a lot of mentors and senior researchers need retraining  on the point of stroke research. Helping stroke survivors, usually to 100% recovery.

Longer term stroke risk in intracerebral haemorrhage survivors



  1. Gargi Banerjee1,
  2. Duncan Wilson1,
  3. Gareth Ambler2,
  4. Isabel Charlotte Hostettler1,
  5. Clare Shakeshaft1,
  6. Hannah Cohen3,
  7. Tarek Yousry4,
  8. Rustam Al-Shahi Salman5,
  9. Gregory Y H Lip6,7,
  10. Henry Houlden8,
  11. Keith W Muir9,
  12. Martin M Brown1,
  13. Hans Rolf Jäger4,
  14. David J Werring1
  15. on behalf of the CROMIS-2 collaborators

Author affiliations

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the influence of intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) location on stroke outcomes.
Methods 
We included patients recruited to a UK hospital-based, multicentre observational study of adults with imaging confirmed spontaneous ICH. The outcomes of interest were occurrence of a cerebral ischaemic event (either stroke or transient ischaemic attack) or a further ICH following study entry. Haematoma location was classified as lobar or non-lobar.
Results 
All 1094 patients recruited to the CROMIS-2 (Clinical Relevance of Microbleeds in Stroke) ICH study were included (mean age 73.3 years; 57.4% male). There were 45 recurrent ICH events (absolute event rate (AER) 1.88 per 100 patient-years); 35 in patients presenting with lobar ICH (n=447, AER 3.77 per 100 patient-years); and 9 in patients presenting with non-lobar ICH (n=580, AER 0.69 per 100 patient-years). Multivariable Cox regression found that lobar ICH was associated with ICH recurrence (HR 8.96, 95% CI 3.36 to 23.87, p<0.0001); similar results were found in multivariable completing risk analyses. There were 70 cerebral ischaemic events (AER 2.93 per 100 patient-years); 29 in patients presenting with lobar ICH (AER 3.12 per 100 patient-years); and 39 in patients with non-lobar ICH (AER 2.97 per 100 patient-years). Multivariable Cox regression found no association with ICH location (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.92, p=0.659). Similar results were seen in completing risk analyses.
Conclusions 
 In ICH survivors, lobar ICH location was associated with a higher risk of recurrent ICH events than non-lobar ICH; ICH location did not influence risk of subsequent ischaemic events.
Trial registration number NCT02513316.
View Full Text

No comments:

Post a Comment