Pamela H. Mitchell

Guidelines for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

Intensive care unit quality improvement: A "how-to" guide for the interdisciplinary team*

Objective:Quality improvement is an important activity for all members of the interdisciplinary critical care team. Although an increasing number of resources are available to guide clinicians, quality improvement activities can be overwhelming. Therefore, the Society of Critical Care Medicine charged this Outcomes Task Force with creating a “how-to” guide that focuses on critical care, summarizes key concepts, and outlines a practical approach to the development, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance of an interdisciplinary quality improvement program in the intensive care unit. Data Sources and Methods:The task force met in person twice and by conference call twice to write this document. We also conducted a literature search on “quality improvement” and “critical care or intensive care” and searched online for additional resources. Data Synthesis and Overview:We present an overview of quality improvement in the intensive care unit setting and then describe the following steps for initiating or improving an interdisciplinary critical care quality improvement program: a) identify local motivation, support teamwork, and develop strong leadership; b) prioritize potential projects and choose the first target; c) operationalize the measures, build support for the project, and develop a business plan; d) perform an environmental scan to better understand the problem, potential barriers, opportunities, and resources for the project; e) create a data collection system that accurately measures baseline performance and future improvements; f) create a data reporting system that allows clinicians and others to understand the problem; g) introduce effective strategies to change clinician behavior. In addition, we identify four steps for evaluating and maintaining this program: a) determine whether the target is changing with periodic data collection; b) modify behavior change strategies to improve or sustain improvements; c) focus on interdisciplinary collaboration; and d) develop and sustain support from the hospital leadership. We also identify a number of online resources to complement this overview. Conclusions:This Society of Critical Care Medicine Task Force report provides an overview for clinicians interested in developing or improving a quality improvement program using a step-wise approach. Success depends not only on committed interdisciplinary work that is incremental and continuous but also on strong leadership. Further research is needed to refine the methods and identify the most cost-effective means of improving the quality of health care received by critically ill patients and their families.

Comprehensive Overview of Nursing and Interdisciplinary Care of the Acute Ischemic Stroke Patient: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Ischemic stroke represents 87% of all strokes.1 As worldwide initiatives move forward with stroke care, healthcare providers and institutions will be called on to deliver the most current evidence-based care. The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) charged a panel of healthcare professionals from several disciplines with developing a practical, comprehensive overview of care for the patient with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). This article focuses on educating nursing and allied healthcare professionals about the roles and responsibilities of those who care for patients with AIS. Nurses play a pivotal role in all phases of care of the stroke patient. For the purposes of this article, the writing panel has defined 2 phases of stroke care: (1) The emergency or hyperacute care phase,2,3 which includes the prehospital setting and the emergency department (ED), and (2) the acute care phase, which includes critical care units, intermediate care units, stroke units, and general medical units. Stroke is a complex disease that requires the efforts and skills of all members of the multidisciplinary team. Nurses are often responsible for the coordination of care throughout the continuum.4–9 Coordinated care of the AIS patient results in improved outcomes, decreased lengths of stay, and decreased costs.10 In developing this comprehensive overview, the writing panel applied the rules of evidence and formulation of strength of evidence (recommendations) used by other AHA writing groups11 (Table 1). We also cross-reference other AHA guidelines as appropriate. Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Levels of Evidence *Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as gender, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use. A recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. …

ADVERSE OUTCOMES AND VARIATIONS IN ORGANIZATION OF CARE DELIVERY

OBJECTIVES This article evaluates the state of the science with respect to morbidity, mortality, and adverse effects as outcomes indicative of variations in organizational variables in care delivery systems. METHODS Eighty-one research papers research examining relations among organizational structures or processes and mortality/adverse effects were reviewed, assembled from electronic and manual searches of the biomedical and health services research literature. RESULTS Most research relating mortality and other adverse outcomes to organizational variables has been conducted in acute care hospitals since 1990, with these outcome indicators linked more frequently to organizational structures than to organizational or clinical processes. There is support in some studies, but not in others, that nursing surveillance, quality of working environment, and quality of interaction with other professionals distinguish hospitals with lower mortality and complications from those with higher rates of these adverse effects. Increasing sophistication of risk adjustment methods suggests that variations in mortality and complications are influenced by patient variables more than by organizational variables. Adverse events may be a more sensitive marker of differences in organizational quality in acute care hospitals and long-term care. CONCLUSIONS Taken together, the acute care studies are not conclusive regarding the extent to which the organizational features of care delivery systems positively influence such bottom-line outcomes as mortality. As severity-adjustment methods become more refined for hospital patients, many of the small differences currently seen in mortality and complications may disappear. However, given that adverse events appear more closely related to organizational factors than in mortality, researchers need to refine and better define such events that are logically related to the coordinative organizational processes among caregivers. Finally, researchers need to go much beyond mortality, morbidity, and adverse events in evaluating the linkage between the organization of care and outcomes.

Inclusion of Stroke in Cardiovascular Risk Prediction Instruments A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Current US guideline statements regarding primary and secondary cardiovascular risk prediction and prevention use absolute risk estimates to identify patients who are at high risk for vascular disease events and who may benefit from specific preventive interventions. These guidelines do not explicitly include patients with stroke, however. This statement provides an overview of evidence and arguments supporting (1) the inclusion of patients with stroke, and atherosclerotic stroke in particular, among those considered to be at high absolute risk of cardiovascular disease and (2) the inclusion of stroke as part of the outcome cluster in risk prediction instruments for vascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS Writing group members were nominated by the committee co-chairs on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Councils Scientific Statements Oversight Committee and the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writers used systematic literature reviews (covering the period from January 1980 to March 2010), reference to previously published guidelines, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and, when appropriate, formulate recommendations using standard AHA criteria. All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the recommendations and approved the final version of this document. The guideline underwent extensive AHA internal peer review, Stroke Council leadership review, and Scientific Statements Oversight Committee review before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. There are several reasons to consider stroke patients, and particularly patients with atherosclerotic stroke, among the groups of patients at high absolute risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease. First, evidence suggests that patients with ischemic stroke are at high absolute risk of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction or sudden death, approximating the ≥20% absolute risk over 10 years that has been used in some guidelines to define coronary risk equivalents. Second, inclusion of atherosclerotic stroke would be consistent with the reasons for inclusion of diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and other atherosclerotic disorders despite an absence of uniformity of evidence of elevated risks across all populations or patients. Third, the large-vessel atherosclerotic subtype of ischemic stroke shares pathophysiological mechanisms with these other disorders. Inclusion of stroke as a high-risk condition could result in an expansion of ≈10% in the number of patients considered to be at high risk. However, because of the heterogeneity of stroke, it is uncertain whether other stroke subtypes, including hemorrhagic and nonatherosclerotic ischemic stroke subtypes, should be considered to be at the same high levels of risk, and further research is needed. Inclusion of stroke with myocardial infarction and sudden death among the outcome cluster of cardiovascular events in risk prediction instruments, moreover, is appropriate because of the impact of stroke on morbidity and mortality, the similarity of many approaches to prevention of stroke and these other forms of vascular disease, and the importance of stroke relative to coronary disease in some subpopulations. Non-US guidelines often include stroke patients among others at high cardiovascular risk and include stroke as a relevant outcome along with cardiac end points. CONCLUSIONS Patients with atherosclerotic stroke should be included among those deemed to be at high risk (≥20% over 10 years) of further atherosclerotic coronary events. Inclusion of nonatherosclerotic stroke subtypes remains less certain. For the purposes of primary prevention, ischemic stroke should be included among cardiovascular disease outcomes in absolute risk assessment algorithms. The inclusion of atherosclerotic ischemic stroke as a high-risk condition and the inclusion of ischemic stroke more broadly as an outcome will likely have important implications for prevention of cardiovascular disease, because the number of patients considered to be at high risk would grow substantially.

Low perceived social support and post-myocardial infarction prognosis in the enhancing recovery in coronary heart disease clinical trial: the effects of treatment.

Objective: In post hoc analyses, to examine in low perceived social support (LPSS) patients enrolled in the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease (ENRICHD) clinical trial (n = 1503), the pattern of social support following myocardial infarction (MI), the impact of psychosocial intervention on perceived support, the relationship of perceived support at the time of MI to subsequent death and recurrent MI, and the relationship of change in perceived support 6 months after MI to subsequent mortality. Methods: Partner status (partner, no partner) and score (<12 = low support; >12 = moderate support) on the ENRICHD Social Support Instrument (ESSI) were used post hoc to define four levels of risk. The resulting 4 LPSS risk groups were compared on baseline characteristics, changes in social support, and medical outcomes to a group of concurrently enrolled acute myocardial infarction patients without depression or LPSS (MI comparison group, n = 408). Effects of treatment assignment on LPSS and death/recurrent MI were also examined. Results: All 4 LPSS risk groups demonstrated improvement in perceived support, regardless of treatment assignment, with a significant treatment effect only seen in the LPSS risk group with no partner and moderate support at baseline. During an average 29-month follow-up, the combined end point of death/nonfatal MI was 10% in the MI comparison group and 23% in the ENRICHD LPSS patients; LPSS conferred a greater risk in unadjusted and adjusted models (HR = 1.74–2.39). Change in ESSI score and/or improvement in perceived social support were not found to predict subsequent mortality. Conclusions: Baseline LPSS predicted death/recurrent MI in the ENRICHD cohort, independent of treatment assignment. Intervention effects indicated a partner surrogacy role for the interventionist and the need for a moderate level of support at baseline for the intervention to be effective. CAD = coronary artery disease; CHD = coronary heart disease; AMI = acute myocardial infarction; MI = myocardial infarction; ENRICHD = Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease; LPSS = low perceived social support; ESSI = ENRICHD Social Support Instrument; UC = usual care; INT = intervention; DISH = Diagnostic Interview and Structured Hamilton; ECG = electrocardiogram; BDI = Beck Depression Inventory; HR = hazard ratio; CI = confidence interval.

Social support and prognosis in patients at increased psychosocial risk recovering from myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE To compare the impact of network support and different types of perceived functional support on all-cause mortality or nonfatal reinfarction for patients with a recent acute myocardial infarction (AMI). DESIGN Participants were recruited from the Enhancing Recovery in Coronary Heart Disease (ENRICHD) trial; 2,481 AMI patients with depression or low social support were randomized to a cognitive-behavioral intervention or to a usual care control group. Data collection for certain measures of social support was limited: 2,466 participants completed the ENRICHD Social Support Inventory; 2,457 completed the Perceived Social Support Scale; 1,296 completed the Social Network Questionnaire; and 707 completed the Interpersonal Support and Evaluation List, Tangible Support subscale. Patients also completed the Beck Depression Inventory and were followed for up to 4.5 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE Time to death or nonfatal reinfarction. RESULTS Over the follow-up period, 599 patients (24%) died or had a nonfatal AMI. Survival models controlling age, sex, race, socioeconomic status, smoking, antidepressant use, and a composite measure of increased risk revealed that higher levels of perceived social support were associated with improved outcome for patients without elevated depression but not for patients with high levels of depression. Neither perceived tangible support nor network support were associated with more frequent adverse events. CONCLUSION AMI patients should be assessed for multiple dimensions of perceived functional support and depression to identify those at increased psychosocial risk who may benefit from treatment.

Brief Psychosocial–Behavioral Intervention With Antidepressant Reduces Poststroke Depression Significantly More Than Usual Care With Antidepressant Living Well With Stroke: Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background and Purpose— Depression after stroke is prevalent, diminishing recovery and quality of life. Brief behavioral intervention, adjunctive to antidepressant therapy, has not been well evaluated for long-term efficacy in those with poststroke depression. Methods— One hundred one clinically depressed patients with ischemic stroke within 4 months of index stroke were randomly assigned to an 8-week brief psychosocial–behavioral intervention plus antidepressant or usual care, including antidepressant. The primary end point was reduction in depressive symptom severity at 12 months after entry. Results— Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression raw score in the intervention group was significantly lower immediately posttreatment (P<0.001) and at 12 months (P=0.05) compared with control subjects. Remission (Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression <10) was significantly greater immediately posttreatment and at 12 months in the intervention group compared with the usual care control. The mean percent decrease (47%±26% intervention versus 32%±36% control, P=0.02) and the mean absolute decrease (−9.2±5.7 intervention versus −6.2±6.4 control, P=0.023) in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at 12 months were clinically important and statistically significant in the intervention group compared with control. Conclusion— A brief psychosocial–behavioral intervention is highly effective in reducing depression in both the short and long term.

The association between nursing factors and patient mortality in the Veterans Health Administration: the view from the nursing unit level.

Context:Nurse staffing is not the same across an entire hospital. Nursing care is delivered in geographically-based units, with wide variation in staffing levels. In particular, staffing in intensive care is much richer than in nonintensive care acute units. Objective:To evaluate the association of in-hospital patient mortality with registered nurse staffing and skill mix comparing hospital and unit level analysis using data from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Design, Settings, and Patients:A retrospective observational study using administrative data from 129,579 patients from 453 nursing units (171 ICU and 282 non-ICU) in 123 VHA hospitals. Methods:We used hierarchical multilevel regression models to adjust for patient, unit, and hospital characteristics, stratifying by whether or not patients had an ICU stay during admission. Main Outcome Measure:In-hospital mortality. Results:Of the 129,579 patients, mortality was 2.9% overall: 6.7% for patients with an ICU stay compared with 1.6% for those without. Whether the analysis was done at the hospital or unit level affected findings. RN staffing was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality for patients with an ICU stay (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99–1.03). For non-ICU patients, increased RN staffing was significantly associated with decreased mortality risk (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86–0.96). RN education was not significantly associated with mortality. Conclusions:Our findings suggest that the association between RN staffing and skill mix and in-hospital patient mortality depends on whether the analysis is conducted at the hospital or unit level. Variable staffing on non-ICU units may significantly contribute to in-hospital mortality risk.

Association of Serotonin Transporter Gene Polymorphisms With Poststroke Depression

CONTEXT Polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter gene (SERT) have been associated with mental illness. In people with long-term medical conditions, variants of the 5-HTTLPR and STin2 VNTR polymorphisms of SERT have been shown to confer a heightened vulnerability to comorbid depression. OBJECTIVE To determine whether the 5-HTTLPR, STin2 VNTR, and rs25531 polymorphisms of SERT are associated with poststroke depression (PSD) in stroke survivors. DESIGN A case-control study in which stroke survivors were screened for depressive symptoms and assigned to either a depressed group or a nondepressed group. SETTING Outpatient clinic. PARTICIPANTS Seventy-five stroke survivors with PSD and 75 nondepressed stroke survivors. INTERVENTIONS Blood or saliva samples were collected from each participant for DNA extraction and genotyping. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The associations between the 5-HTTLPR, STin2 VNTR, and rs25531 polymorphisms and PSD. RESULTS Individuals with the 5-HTTLPR s/s genotype had 3-fold higher odds of PSD compared with l/l or l/xl genotype carriers (odds ratio, 3.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-8.3). Participants with the STin2 9/12 or 12/12 genotype had 4-fold higher odds of PSD compared with STin2 10/10 genotype carriers (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-13.6). An association of rs25531 with PSD was not shown. CONCLUSIONS The 5-HTTLPR and the STin2 VNTR, but not the rs25531, polymorphisms of SERT are associated with PSD in stroke survivors. This gives further evidence of a role of SERT polymorphisms in mediating resilience to biopsychosocial stress.