Deans' stroke musings: Access, timing and frequency of very early stroke rehabilitation – insights from the Baden-Wuerttemberg stroke registry

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, November 22, 2016

Access, timing and frequency of very early stroke rehabilitation – insights from the Baden-Wuerttemberg stroke registry

So we still know fucking nothing about when to start stroke rehab. And they aren't smart enough to understand the neuronal cascade of death by suggesting early rehab causes worse outcomes in severe stroke. We have fucking stupid idiots in stroke.
https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12883-016-0744-7

Björn ReuterEmail author View ORCID ID profile,
Christoph Gumbinger,
Tamara Sauer,
Horst Wiethölter,
Ingo Bruder,
Curt Diehm,
Peter A. Ringleb,
Werner Hacke,
Michael G. Hennerici,
Rolf Kern and
and Stroke Working Group of Baden-Wuerttemberg

BMC NeurologyBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:222

DOI: 10.1186/s12883-016-0744-7

Received: 28 May 2016

Accepted: 8 November 2016

Published: 16 November 2016

Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

While the precise timing and intensity of very early rehabilitation (VER) after stroke onset is still under discussion, its beneficial effect on functional disability is generally accepted. The recently published randomized controlled AVERT trial indicated that patients with severe stroke might be more susceptible to harmful side effects of VER, which we hypothesized is contrary to current clinical practice. We analyzed the Baden-Wuerttemberg stroke registry to gain insight into the application of VER in acute ischemic stroke (IS) and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) in clinical practice.

Methods

99,753 IS patients and 8824 patients with ICH hospitalized from January 2008 to December 2012 were analyzed. Data on the access to physical therapy (PT), occupational therapy (OT), and speech therapy (ST), the time from admission to first contact with a therapist and the average number of therapy sessions during the first 7 days of admission are reported. Multiple logistic regression models adjusted for patient and treatment characteristics were carried out to investigate the influence of VER on clinical outcome.

Results

PT was applied in 90/87% (IS/ICH), OT in 63/57%, and ST in 70/65% of the study population. Therapy was mostly initiated within 24 h (PT 87/82%) or 48 h after admission (OT 91/89% and ST 93/90%). Percentages of patients under therapy and also the average number of therapy sessions were highest in those with a discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 2 to 5 and lowest in patients with complete recovery or death during hospitalization. The outcome analyses were fundamentally hindered due to biases by individual decision making regarding the application and frequency of VER.

Conclusions

While most patients had access to PT we noticed an undersupply of OT and ST. Only little differences were observed between patients with IS and ICH. The staff decisions for treatment seem to reflect attempts to optimize resources. Patients with either excellent or very unfavorable prognosis were less frequently assigned to VER and, if treated, received a lower average number of therapy sessions. On the contrary, severely disabled patients received VER at high frequency, although potentially harmful according to recent indications from the randomized controlled AVERT trial.