Shared decision making in older people after severe stroke.

Stroke is a major cause of death and lifelong disability. Although stroke treatments have improved, many patients are left with life-changing deficits. Shared decision making and consent are fundamental to good medical practice. This is challenging because stroke often causes mental incapacity, prior views might not be known and prognosis early after stroke is often uncertain. There are no large trials of shared decision making after severe stroke, so we need to rely on observational data to inform practice. Core ethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice must underpin our decision making. 'Surrogate' decision makers will need to be involved if a patient lacks capacity, and prior expressed views and values and beliefs need to be taken into account in decision making. Patients and surrogates often feel shocked at the sudden nature of stroke, and experience grief including anticipatory grief. Health care professionals need to acknowledge these feelings and provide support, be clear about what decisions need to be made and provide sufficient information about the stroke, and the risks and benefits of treatments being considered. Shared decision making can be emotionally difficult for health care professionals and so working in a supportive environment with compassionate leadership is important. Further research is needed to better understand the nature of grief and what sort of psychological support would be most helpful. Large randomised trials of shared decision making are also needed.

External electrical and pharmacological cardioversion for atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter or atrial tachycardias: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most frequent sustained arrhythmia. Cardioversion is a rhythm control strategy to restore normal/sinus rhythm, and can be achieved through drugs (pharmacological) or a synchronised electric shock (electrical cardioversion). OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and electrical cardioversion for atrial fibrillation (AF), atrial flutter and atrial tachycardias. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S) and three trials registers (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and ISRCTN) on 14 February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) at the individual patient level. Patient populations were aged ≥ 18 years with AF of any type and duration, atrial flutter or other sustained related atrial arrhythmias, not occurring as a result of reversible causes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodology to collect data and performed a network meta-analysis using the standard frequentist graph-theoretical approach using the netmeta package in R. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence which we presented in our summary of findings with a judgement on certainty. We calculated differences using risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as well as ranking treatments using a P value. We assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity and split the networks for the primary outcome and acute procedural success, due to concerns about violating the transitivity assumption. MAIN RESULTS: We included 112 RCTs (139 records), from which we pooled data from 15,968 patients. The average age ranged from 47 to 72 years and the proportion of male patients ranged from 38% to 92%. Seventy-nine trials were considered to be at high risk of bias for at least one domain, 32 had no high risk of bias domains, but had at least one domain classified as uncertain risk, and one study was considered at low risk for all domains. For paroxysmal AF (35 trials), when compared to placebo, anteroapical (AA)/anteroposterior (AP) biphasic truncated exponential waveform (BTE) cardioversion (RR: 2.42; 95% CI 1.65 to 3.56), quinidine (RR: 2.23; 95% CI 1.49 to 3.34), ibutilide (RR: 2.00; 95% CI 1.28 to 3.12), propafenone (RR: 1.98; 95% CI 1.67 to 2.34), amiodarone (RR: 1.69; 95% CI 1.42 to 2.02), sotalol (RR: 1.58; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.31) and procainamide (RR: 1.49; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.97) likely result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm until hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate). The effect size was larger for AA/AP incremental and was progressively smaller for the subsequent interventions. Despite low certainty of evidence, antazoline may result in a large increase (RR: 28.60; 95% CI 1.77 to 461.30) in this outcome. Similarly, low-certainty evidence suggests a large increase in this outcome for flecainide (RR: 2.17; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.79), vernakalant (RR: 2.13; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.99), and magnesium (RR: 1.73; 95% CI 0.79 to 3.79). For persistent AF (26 trials), one network was created for electrical cardioversion and showed that, when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches, AP BTE maximum energy with patches (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55) likely results in a large increase, and active compression AP BTE incremental energy with patches (RR: 1.14, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.131) likely results in an increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: high). Use of AP BTE incremental with paddles (RR: 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight increase, and AP MDS Incremental paddles (RR: 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; certainty of evidence: low) may lead to a slight decrease in efficacy. On the other hand, AP MDS incremental energy using patches (RR: 0.78, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.87), AA RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.88), AP RBW incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.86), AA MDS incremental energy with patches (RR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86) and AA MDS incremental energy with paddles (RR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83) probably result in a decrease in this outcome when compared to AP BTE incremental energy with patches (certainty of evidence: moderate). The network for pharmacological cardioversion showed that bepridil (RR: 2.29, 95% CI 1.26 to 4.17) and quindine (RR: 1.53, (95% CI 1.01 to 2.32) probably result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up when compared to amiodarone (certainty of evidence: moderate). Dofetilide (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.44), sotalol (RR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.18), propafenone (RR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25) and pilsicainide (RR: 0.39, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.01) may result in a reduction in this outcome when compared to amiodarone, but the certainty of evidence is low. For atrial flutter (14 trials), a network could be created only for antiarrhythmic drugs. Using placebo as the common comparator, ibutilide (RR: 21.45, 95% CI 4.41 to 104.37), propafenone (RR: 7.15, 95% CI 1.27 to 40.10), dofetilide (RR: 6.43, 95% CI 1.38 to 29.91), and sotalol (RR: 6.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 39.78) probably result in a large increase in the maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: moderate), and procainamide (RR: 4.29, 95% CI 0.63 to 29.03), flecainide (RR 3.57, 95% CI 0.24 to 52.30) and vernakalant (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 27.37) may result in a large increase in maintenance of sinus rhythm at hospital discharge or end of study follow-up (certainty of evidence: low). All tested electrical cardioversion strategies for atrial flutter had very high efficacy (97.9% to 100%). The rate of mortality (14 deaths) and stroke or systemic embolism (3 events) at 30 days was extremely low. Data on quality of life were scarce and of uncertain clinical significance. No information was available regarding heart failure readmissions. Data on duration of hospitalisation was scarce, of low quality, and could not be pooled. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the low quality of evidence, this systematic review provides important information on electrical and pharmacological strategies to help patients and physicians deal with AF and atrial flutter. In the assessment of the patient comorbidity profile, antiarrhythmic drug onset of action and side effect profile versus the need for a physician with experience in sedation, or anaesthetics support for electrical cardioversion are key aspects when choosing the cardioversion method.

Prevalence, Trajectory, and Predictors of Poststroke Pain: Retrospective Analysis of Pooled Clinical Trial Data Set.

BACKGROUND: Poststroke pain remains underdiagnosed and inadequately managed. To inform the optimum time to initiate interventions, we examined prevalence, trajectory, and participant factors associated with poststroke pain. METHODS: Eligible studies from the VISTA (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archives) included an assessment of pain. Analyses of individual participant data examined demography, pain, mobility, independence, language, anxiety/depression, and vitality. Pain assessments were standardized to the European Quality of Life Scale (European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions 3 Level) pain domain, describing no, moderate, or extreme pain. We described pain prevalence, associations between participant characteristics, and pain using multivariable models. RESULTS: From 94 studies (n>48 000 individual participant data) in VISTA, 10 (n=10 002 individual participant data) included a pain assessment. Median age was 70.0 years (interquartile range [59.0-77.1]), 5560 (55.6%) were male, baseline stroke severity was National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score 10 (interquartile range [7-15]). Reports of extreme pain ranged between 3% and 9.5% and were highest beyond 2 years poststroke (31/328 [9.5%]); pain trajectory varied by study. Poorer independence was significantly associated with presence of moderate or extreme pain (5 weeks-3 months odds ratio [OR], 1.5 [95% CI, 1.4-1.6]; 4-6 months OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.3-2.1]; >6 months OR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2-2.0]), and increased severity of pain (5 weeks-3 months: OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; 4-6 months OR, 1.1 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]; >6 months, OR, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1-1.2]), after adjusting for covariates. Anxiety/depression and lower vitality were each associated with pain severity. CONCLUSIONS: Between 3% and 9.5% of participants reported extreme poststroke pain; the presence and severity of pain were independently associated with dependence at each time point. Future studies could determine whether and when interventions may reduce the prevalence and severity of poststroke pain.

Depression, Anxiety, and Suicide After Stroke: A Narrative Review of the Best Available Evidence.

Depression and anxiety each affect around 1 in 3 people during the first year after a stroke. Suicide causes the death of about 3 to 4/1000 stroke survivors during the first 5 years. This narrative review describes the best available evidence for the epidemiology of depression, anxiety, and suicide; their prevention; and the treatment of anxiety and depression. We conclude with directions for future research.

Post stroke intervention trial in fatigue (POSITIF): Randomised multicentre feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of a telephone delivered intervention, informed by cognitive behavioural principles, for post-stroke fatigue, and estimated its effect on fatigue and other outcomes. DESIGN: Randomised controlled parallel group trial. SETTING: Three Scottish stroke services. SUBJECTS: Stroke survivors with fatigue three months to two years post-stroke onset. INTERVENTIONS: Seven telephone calls (fortnightly then a 'booster session' at 16 weeks) of a manualised intervention, plus information about fatigue, versus information only. MAIN MEASURES: Feasibility of trial methods, and collected outcome measures (fatigue, mood, anxiety, social participation, quality of life, return to work) just before randomisation, at the end of treatment (four months after randomisation) and at six months after randomisation. RESULTS: Between October 2018 and January 2020, we invited 886 stroke survivors to participate in postal screening: 188/886 (21%) returned questionnaires and consented, of whom 76/188 (40%) were eligible and returned baseline forms; 64/76 (84%) returned six month follow-up questionnaires. Of the 39 allocated the intervention, 23 (59%) attended at least four sessions. At six months, there were no significant differences between the groups (adjusted mean differences in Fatigue Assessment Scale -0.619 (95% CI -4.9631, 3.694; p = 0.768), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 -0.178 (95% CI -3.823, 3.467, p = 0.92), and the Patient Health Questionnaire -0.247 (95% CI -2.935, 2.442, p = 0.851). There were no between-group differences in quality of life, social participation or return to work. CONCLUSION: Patients can be recruited to a trial of this design. These data will inform the design of further trials in post-stroke fatigue.

Informing Patients with Acute Stroke About their Risk of Dementia: A Survey of UK Healthcare Professionals.

OBJECTIVES: Cognitive problems following stroke are of key concern to stroke survivors. Discussing risk of dementia at the time of stroke could have implications for follow-up care. However, informing someone who has just had a stroke about risk of dementia could cause distress. This survey explored healthcare professionals' views on discussing risk of post-stroke dementia at the time of stroke. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This online survey was aimed at all UK healthcare professionals who care for patients with stroke. The survey was distributed via the mailing lists of seven professional stroke-related organisations and Twitter. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise findings. RESULTS: Sixty healthcare professionals completed the survey. Healthcare professionals were aware of the main risk factors associated with post-stroke dementia (e.g. previous stroke, age). Most respondents (N=34/60, 57%) thought that patients with acute stroke would benefit from knowing if they are at high risk of dementia, and 75% (N=45/60) agreed that carers would benefit. Despite this, the majority of healthcare professionals (N=47/53, 89%) who cared for patients with acute stroke in the past year said they rarely/never discussed dementia with their patients. Most respondents (N=46/60, 77%) thought risk of dementia should be discussed 1-6 months post-stroke. CONCLUSION: Although healthcare professionals felt it would be helpful to discuss risk of post-stroke dementia, in practice, most said that they rarely or never discussed this with their patients. Stroke survivors could benefit from a healthcare system that offers appropriate follow-up care and support to patients at high risk of dementia.

Core Outcome Measures for Palliative and End-of-Life Research After Severe Stroke: Mixed-Method Delphi Study.

Background and Purpose: Stroke is the second commonest cause of death worldwide and a leading cause of severe disability, yet there are no published trials of palliative care in stroke. To design and evaluate palliative care interventions for people with stroke, researchers need to know what measurable outcomes matter most to patients and families, stroke professionals, and other service providers. Methods: A multidisciplinary steering group of professionals and laypeople managed the study. We synthesized recommendations from respected United Kingdom and international consensus documents to generate a list of outcome domains and then performed a rapid scoping literature review to identify potential outcome measures for use in future trials of palliative care after stroke. We then completed a 3-round, online Delphi survey of professionals, and service users to build consensus about outcome domains and outcome measures. Finally, we held a stakeholder workshop to review and finalize this consensus. Results: We generated a list of 36 different outcome domains from 4 key policy documents. The rapid scoping review identified 43 potential outcome measures that were used to create a shortlist of 16 measures. The 36 outcome domains and 16 measures were presented to a Delphi panel of diverse healthcare professionals and lay service users. Of 48 panelists invited to take part, 28 completed all 3 rounds. Shared decision-making and quality of life were selected as the most important outcome domains for future trials of palliative care in stroke. Additional comments highlighted the need for outcomes to be feasible, measurable, and relevant beyond the initial, acute phase of stroke. The stakeholder workshop endorsed these results. Conclusions: Future trials of palliative care after stroke should include pragmatic outcome measures, applicable to the evolving patient and family experiences after stroke and be inclusive of shared decision-making and quality of life.

Twelve-Month Outcomes of the AFFINITY Trial of Fluoxetine for Functional Recovery After Acute Stroke: AFFINITY Trial Steering Committee on Behalf of the AFFINITY Trial Collaboration.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The AFFINITY trial (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery) reported that oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and seizures. After trial medication was ceased at 6 months, survivors were followed to 12 months post-randomization. This preplanned secondary analysis aimed to determine any sustained or delayed effects of fluoxetine at 12 months post-randomization. METHODS: AFFINITY was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults (n=1280) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the previous 2 to 15 days and persisting neurological deficit who were recruited at 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (4), and Vietnam (10) between 2013 and 2019. Participants were randomized to oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily (n=642) or matching placebo (n=638) for 6 months and followed until 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was function, measured by the modified Rankin Scale, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes for these analyses included measures of the modified Rankin Scale, mood, cognition, overall health status, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and safety at 12 months. RESULTS: Adherence to trial medication was for a mean 167 (SD 48) days and similar between randomized groups. At 12 months, the distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.46). Compared with placebo, patients allocated fluoxetine had fewer recurrent ischemic strokes (14 [2.18%] versus 29 [4.55%]; P=0.02), and no longer had significantly more falls (27 [4.21%] versus 15 [2.35%]; P=0.08), bone fractures (23 [3.58%] versus 11 [1.72%]; P=0.05), or seizures (11 [1.71%] versus 8 [1.25%]; P=0.64) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke had no delayed or sustained effect on functional outcome, falls, bone fractures, or seizures at 12 months poststroke. The lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke in the fluoxetine group is most likely a chance finding. Registration: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921.

Effects of Fluoxetine on Outcomes at 12 Months After Acute Stroke: Results From EFFECTS, a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background and Purpose: The EFFECTS (Efficacy of Fluoxetine­a Randomised Controlled Trial in Stroke) recently reported that 20 mg fluoxetine once daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome but reduced depression and increased fractures and hyponatremia at 6 months. The purpose of this predefined secondary analysis was to identify if any effects of fluoxetine were maintained or delayed over 12 months. Methods: EFFECTS was an investigator-led, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial in Sweden that enrolled adult patients with stroke. Patients were randomized to 20 mg oral fluoxetine or matching placebo for 6 months and followed for another 6 months. The primary outcome was functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale), at 6 months. Predefined secondary outcomes for these analyses included the modified Rankin Scale, health status, quality of life, fatigue, mood, and depression at 12 months. Results: One thousand five hundred patients were recruited from 35 centers in Sweden between 2014 and 2019; 750 were allocated fluoxetine and 750 placebo. At 12 months, modified Rankin Scale data were available in 715 (95%) patients allocated fluoxetine and 712 (95%) placebo. The distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the 2 groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.76­1.10]). Patients allocated fluoxetine scored worse on memory with a median value of 89 (interquartile range, 75­100) versus 93 (interquartile range, 82­100); P=0.0021 and communication 93 (interquartile range, 82­100) versus 96 (interquartile range, 86­100); P=0.024 domains of the Stroke Impact Scale compared with placebo. There were no other differences in secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Fluoxetine after acute stroke had no effect on functional outcome at 12 months. Patients allocated fluoxetine scored worse on memory and communication on the Stroke Impact Scale compared with placebo, but this is likely to be due to chance. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02683213.

An Exploration of Sedentary Behavior Patterns in Community-Dwelling People With Stroke: A Cluster-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Long periods of daily sedentary time, particularly accumulated in long uninterrupted bouts, are a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. People with stroke are at high risk of recurrent events and prolonged sedentary time may increase this risk. We aimed to explore how people with stroke distribute their periods of sedentary behavior, which factors influence this distribution, and whether sedentary behavior clusters can be distinguished? METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of original accelerometry data from adults with stroke living in the community. We conducted data-driven clustering analyses to identify unique accumulation patterns of sedentary time across participants, followed by multinomial logistical regression to determine the association between the clusters, and the total amount of sedentary time, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), walking speed, and wake time. RESULTS: Participants in the highest quartile of total sedentary time accumulated a significantly higher proportion of their sedentary time in prolonged bouts (P < 0.001). Six unique accumulation patterns were identified, all of which were characterized by high sedentary time. Total sedentary time, age, gender, BMI, and walking speed were significantly associated with the probability of a person being in a specific accumulation pattern cluster, P < 0.001 - P = 0.002. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Although unique accumulation patterns were identified, there is not just one accumulation pattern for high sedentary time. This suggests that interventions to reduce sedentary time must be individually tailored.Video Abstract available for more insight from the authors (see the Video Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A343).

Interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in people with stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting-list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low-certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate-certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high-quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer-term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long-term follow-up.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) might theoretically reduce post-stroke disability by direct effects on the brain. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2012 and last updated in 2019. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 7 January 2021), Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, 7 January 2021), MEDLINE (1946 to 7 January 2021), Embase (1974 to 7 January 2021), CINAHL (1982 to 7 January 2021), PsycINFO (1985 to 7 January 2021), and AMED (1985 to 7 January 2021). PsycBITE had previously been searched (16 July 2018). We searched clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke survivors within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. The comparator was usual care or placebo. Studies reporting at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, cognition, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the study early) were included in the meta-analysis. The primary analysis included studies at low risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, stroke type and, our pre-specified outcomes, and bias sources. Two review authors independently extracted data. We used mean difference (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed bias risks and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 76 eligible studies (13,029 participants); 75 provided data at end of treatment, and of these two provided data at follow-up. Thirty-eight required participants to have depression to enter. The duration, drug, and dose varied. Six studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; all six studies did not need participants to have depression to enter, and all used fluoxetine. Of these six studies, there was little to no difference in disability between groups SMD -0.0; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.05; 5 studies, 5436 participants, high-quality evidence) or in independence (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.03; 5 studies, 5926 participants; high-quality evidence) at the end of treatment. In the studies at low risk of bias across all domains, SSRIs slightly reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.14 lower, 95% CI 0.19 lower to 0.08 lower; 4 studies; 5356 participants, high-quality evidence) and there was a slight reduction in the proportion with depression (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.86; 3 studies, 5907 participants, high-quality evidence). Cognition was slightly better in the control group (MD -1.22, 95% CI -2.37 to -0.07; 4 studies, 5373 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only one study (n = 30) reported neurological deficit score (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -1.12 to 0.33; low-quality evidence). SSRIs resulted in little to no difference in motor deficit (SMD 0.03, -0.02 to 0.08; 6 studies, 5518 participants, moderate-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the proportion leaving the study early (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.40; 6 studies, 6090 participants, high-quality evidence). SSRIs slightly increased the outcome of a seizure (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.98; 6 studies, 6080 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and a bone fracture (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.62 to 3.41; 6 studies, 6080 participants, high-quality evidence). One study at low risk of bias across all domains reported gastrointestinal side effects (RR 1.71, 95% CI 0.33, to 8.83; 1 study, 30 participants). There was no difference in the total number of deaths between SSRI and placebo (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.24; 6 studies, 6090 participants, moderate quality evidence). SSRIs probably result in little to no difference in fatigue (MD -0.06; 95% CI -1.24 to 1.11; 4 studies, 5524 participants, moderate-quality of evidence), nor in quality of life (MD 0.00; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02, 3 studies, 5482 participants, high-quality evidence). When all studies, irrespective of risk of bias, were included, SSRIs reduced disability scores but not the proportion independent. There was insufficient data to perform a meta-analysis of outcomes at end of follow-up. Several small ongoing studies are unlikely to alter conclusions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that SSRIs do not make a difference to disability or independence after stroke compared to placebo or usual care, reduced the risk of future depression, increased bone fractures and probably increased seizure risk.

Identifying and Responding to Delirium in Acute Stroke: Clinical Team Members' Understandings.

Delirium is associated with increased mortality, morbidity, and length of hospital stay. In the acute stroke setting, delirium identification is challenging due to the complexity of cognitive screening in this patient group. The aim of this study was to explore how members of interprofessional stroke-unit teams identified and responded to a potential delirium in a patient. Online focus groups and interviews utilizing case vignettes were conducted with 15 participants: nurses, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists, and physiotherapists working in acute stroke services. Participants' understandings of delirium varied, most participants did not identify the symptoms of a possible hypoactive delirium, and nearly all participants discussed delirium symptoms in tentative terms. Aspects of interprofessional working were discussed through the expression of distinct roles around delirium identification. Although participants demonstrated an ethos of person-focused care, there are ongoing challenges involved in early identification and management of delirium in stroke survivors.

Telemedicine Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety After Stroke: Proof-of-Concept Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Disabling anxiety affects a quarter of stroke survivors but access to treatment is poor. We developed a telemedicine model for delivering guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for anxiety after stroke (TASK-CBT). We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of TASK-CBT in a randomized controlled trial workflow that enabled all trial procedures to be carried out remotely. In addition, we explored the feasibility of wrist-worn actigraphy sensor as a way of measuring objective outcomes in this clinical trial. METHODS: We recruited adult community-based stroke patients (n=27) and randomly allocated them to TASK-CBT (n=14) or relaxation therapy (TASK-Relax), an active comparator (n=13). RESULTS: In our sample (mean age 65 [±10]; 56% men; 63% stroke, 37% transient ischemic attacks), remote self-enrolment, electronic signature, intervention delivery, and automated follow-up were feasible. All participants completed all TASK-CBT sessions (14/14). Lower levels of anxiety were observed in TASK-CBT when compared with TASK-Relax at both weeks 6 and 20. Mean actigraphy sensor wearing-time was 33 days (±15). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary feasibility data from the current study support a larger definitive clinical trial and the use of wrist-worn actigraphy sensor in anxious stroke survivors. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03439813.

Cluster-Randomized, Crossover Trial of Head Positioning in Acute Stroke.

BACKGROUND: The role of supine positioning after acute stroke in improving cerebral blood flow and the countervailing risk of aspiration pneumonia have led to variation in head positioning in clinical practice. We wanted to determine whether outcomes in patients with acute ischemic stroke could be improved by positioning the patient to be lying flat (i.e., fully supine with the back horizontal and the face upwards) during treatment to increase cerebral perfusion. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial conducted in nine countries, we assigned 11,093 patients with acute stroke (85% of the strokes were ischemic) to receive care in either a lying-flat position or a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees, according to the randomization assignment of the hospital to which they were admitted; the designated position was initiated soon after hospital admission and was maintained for 24 hours. The primary outcome was degree of disability at 90 days, as assessed with the use of the modified Rankin scale (scores range from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating greater disability and a score of 6 indicating death). RESULTS: The median interval between the onset of stroke symptoms and the initiation of the assigned position was 14 hours (interquartile range, 5 to 35). Patients in the lying-flat group were less likely than patients in the sitting-up group to maintain the position for 24 hours (87% vs. 95%, P<0.001). In a proportional-odds model, there was no significant shift in the distribution of 90-day disability outcomes on the global modified Rankin scale between patients in the lying-flat group and patients in the sitting-up group (unadjusted odds ratio for a difference in the distribution of scores on the modified Rankin scale in the lying-flat group, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.10; P=0.84). Mortality within 90 days was 7.3% among the patients in the lying-flat group and 7.4% among the patients in the sitting-up group (P=0.83). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of serious adverse events, including pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Disability outcomes after acute stroke did not differ significantly between patients assigned to a lying-flat position for 24 hours and patients assigned to a sitting-up position with the head elevated to at least 30 degrees for 24 hours. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia; HeadPoST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02162017 .).

Physical fitness training for stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Levels of physical activity and physical fitness are low after stroke. Interventions to increase physical fitness could reduce mortality and reduce disability through increased function. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives of this updated review were to determine whether fitness training after stroke reduces death, death or dependence, and disability. The secondary objectives were to determine the effects of training on adverse events, risk factors, physical fitness, mobility, physical function, health status and quality of life, mood, and cognitive function. SEARCH METHODS: In July 2018 we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, and four additional databases. We also searched ongoing trials registers and conference proceedings, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing either cardiorespiratory training or resistance training, or both (mixed training), with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in stroke survivors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. We analysed data using random-effects meta-analyses and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Diverse outcome measures limited the intended analyses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 studies, involving 3017 mostly ambulatory participants, which comprised cardiorespiratory (32 studies, 1631 participants), resistance (20 studies, 779 participants), and mixed training interventions (23 studies, 1207 participants). Death was not influenced by any intervention; risk differences were all 0.00 (low-certainty evidence). There were few deaths overall (19/3017 at end of intervention and 19/1469 at end of follow-up). None of the studies assessed death or dependence as a composite outcome. Disability scores were improved at end of intervention by cardiorespiratory training (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.52, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.84; 8 studies, 462 participants; P = 0.002; moderate-certainty evidence) and mixed training (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.42; 9 studies, 604 participants; P = 0.02; low-certainty evidence). There were too few data to assess the effects of resistance training on disability. Secondary outcomes showed multiple benefits for physical fitness (VO2 peak and strength), mobility (walking speed) and physical function (balance). These physical effects tended to be intervention-specific with the evidence mostly low or moderate certainty. Risk factor data were limited or showed no effects apart from cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 peak), which increased after cardiorespiratory training (mean difference (MD) 3.40 mL/kg/min, 95% CI 2.98 to 3.83; 9 studies, 438 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of any serious adverse events. Lack of data prevents conclusions about effects of training on mood, quality of life, and cognition. Lack of data also meant benefits at follow-up (i.e. after training had stopped) were unclear but some mobility benefits did persist. Risk of bias varied across studies but imbalanced amounts of exposure in control and intervention groups was a common issue affecting many comparisons. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Few deaths overall suggest exercise is a safe intervention but means we cannot determine whether exercise reduces mortality or the chance of death or dependency. Cardiorespiratory training and, to a lesser extent mixed training, reduce disability during or after usual stroke care; this could be mediated by improved mobility and balance. There is sufficient evidence to incorporate cardiorespiratory and mixed training, involving walking, within post-stroke rehabilitation programmes to improve fitness, balance and the speed and capacity of walking. The magnitude of VO2 peak increase after cardiorespiratory training has been suggested to reduce risk of stroke hospitalisation by ˜7%. Cognitive function is under-investigated despite being a key outcome of interest for patients. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to determine the optimal exercise prescription, the range of benefits and any long-term benefits.

Factors influencing sedentary behaviours after stroke: findings from qualitative observations and interviews with stroke survivors and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are more sedentary than healthy, age-matched controls, independent of functional capacity. Interventions are needed to encourage a reduction in overall sedentary time, and regular breaks in prolonged periods of sedentary behaviour. This study captured the views and experiences of stroke survivors and their caregivers related to sedentary behaviour after stroke, to inform the development of an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour. METHODS: Mixed-methods qualitative study. Non-participant observations were completed in two stroke services, inclusive of inpatient and community settings in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors and their caregivers (if available) at six- or nine-months post-stroke. Underpinned by the capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change, observational data (132 h) were analysed thematically and interview data (n = 31 stroke survivors, n = 12 caregivers) were analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: Observation participants differed in functional ability whereas stroke survivor interviewees were all ambulant. Six themes related to sedentary behaviour after stroke were generated: (1) sedentary behaviour levels and patterns after stroke; (2) the physical and social environment in the stroke service and in the home; (3) standing and movement capability after stroke; (4) emotion and motivation after stroke; (5) caregivers' influence on, and role in influencing stroke survivors' sedentary behaviour; and (6) intervening to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. Capability, opportunity and motivation were influenced by the impact of the stroke and caregivers' inclination to support sedentary behaviour reduction. Stroke survivors reported being more sedentary than they were pre-stroke due to impaired balance and co-ordination, increased fatigue, and reduced confidence in mobilising. Caregivers inclination to support stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour depended on factors including their willingness to withdraw from the caregiver role, and their perception of whether the stroke survivor would act on their encouragement. CONCLUSIONS: Many stroke survivors indicate being open to reducing sedentary behaviour, with appropriate support from stroke service staff and caregivers. The findings from this study have contributed to an intervention development process using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach to develop strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke.

Reporting "specific abilities" after major stroke to better describe prognosis.

INTRODUCTION: If health professionals are to involve major stroke patients and their families in making decisions about treatments, they need to describe prognosis in terms that are easily understood. We suggest that referring to "specific abilities", such as ability to be independent, walk, talk, eat normally, be continent, live without severe pain, live without major anxiety or depression and to live at home may be more easily understood than terms such as disabled based on the modified Rankin scale (mRs). OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the "specific abilities" and quality of life of patients in each mRs level at six months after major stroke. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A longitudinal cohort study of patients admitted to hospital with major stroke with follow up at six months. RESULTS: We recruited 403 patients, mean age 77.5yrs. The number (%) in each mRs level at six months was 0 (no problems): 8(2%), 1: 45(11.2%), 2: 7(1.7%), 3: 149(37.1%), 4: 46(11.4%), 5: 36(9.0%) and 6(dead) 111(27.6%). Patients within each mRs level varied with respect to their "specific abilities" and quality of life. For example, of the 36(9%) patients with mRs 5, 30(83%) could talk, 14(39%) were continent, 33(92%) were not in severe pain, 22(61%) did not have major anxiety/depression and 5(14%) could live at home. Their median utility (derived from HRQoL) was -0.08 (range -0.35 to 0.43). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Describing prognosis with the mRs does not convey the variation in specific abilities and HRQoL amongst patients with major stroke. Therefore, describing prognosis in terms of "specific abilities" may be more appropriate.

Fluoxetine and Fractures After Stroke: Exploratory Analyses From the FOCUS Trial.

Background and Purpose- The FOCUS trial (Fluoxetine or Control Under Supervision) showed that fluoxetine did not improve modified Rankin Scale scores (mRS) but increased the risk of fractures. We aimed to describe the fractures, their impact on mRS and factors associated with fracture risk. Methods- A United Kingdom, multicenter, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Patients ≥18 years with a clinical stroke and persisting deficit assessed 2 to 15 days after onset were eligible. Consenting patients were allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo for 6 months. The primary outcome was the mRS at 6 months and secondary outcomes included fractures. Results- Sixty-five of 3127 (2.1%) patients had 67 fractures within 6 months of randomization; 43 assigned fluoxetine and 22 placebo. Fifty-nine (90.8%) had fallen and 26 (40%) had fractured their neck of femur. The effect of fluoxetine on mRS (common odds ratio =0.951) was not significantly altered by excluding fracture patients (common odds ratio =0.961). Cox proportional hazards modeling showed that only age >70 year (hazard ratio =1.97; 95% CI, 1.13-3.45; P=0.017), female sex (hazard ratio =2.13; 95% CI, 1.29-3.51; P=0.003), and fluoxetine (hazard ratio =2.00; 95% CI, 1.20-3.34; P=0.008) were independently associated with fractures. Conclusions- Most fractures resulted from falls. Although many fractures were serious, and likely to impair patients' function, the increased fracture risk did not explain the lack of observed effect of fluoxetine on mRS. Only increasing age, female sex, and fluoxetine were independent predictors of fractures. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN83290762.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for stroke recovery.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is a major cause of adult disability. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have been used for many years to manage depression and other mood disorders after stroke. The 2012 Cochrane Review of SSRIs for stroke recovery demonstrated positive effects on recovery, even in people who were not depressed at randomisation. A large trial of fluoxetine for stroke recovery (fluoxetine versus placebo under supervision) has recently been published, and it is now appropriate to update the evidence. OBJECTIVES: To determine if SSRIs are more effective than placebo or usual care at improving outcomes in people less than 12 months post-stroke, and to determine whether treatment with SSRIs is associated with adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 16 July 2018), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL, Issue 7 of 12, July 2018), MEDLINE (1946 to July 2018), Embase (1974 to July 2018), CINAHL (1982 July 2018), PsycINFO (1985 to July 2018), AMED (1985 to July 2018), and PsycBITE March 2012 to July 2018). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke survivors at any time within the first year. The intervention was any SSRI, given at any dose, for any period, and for any indication. We excluded drugs with mixed pharmacological effects. The comparator was usual care or placebo. To be included, trials had to collect data on at least one of our primary (disability score or independence) or secondary outcomes (impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, fatigue, healthcare cost, death, adverse events and leaving the trial early). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on demographics, type of stroke, time since stroke, our primary and secondary outcomes, and sources of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data from each trial. We used standardised mean differences (SMDs) to estimate treatment effects for continuous variables, and risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous effects, with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We identified a total of 63 eligible trials recruiting 9168 participants, most of which provided data only at end of treatment and not at follow-up. There was a wide age range. About half the trials required participants to have depression to enter the trial. The duration, drug, and dose varied between trials. Only three of the included trials were at low risk of bias across the key 'Risk of bias' domains. A meta-analysis of these three trials found little or no effect of SSRI on either disability score: SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; P = 0.75; 2 studies, 2829 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or independence: RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; P = 0.99; 3 studies, 3249 participants; moderate-quality evidence). We downgraded both these outcomes for imprecision. SSRIs reduced the average depression score (SMD 0.11 lower, 0.19 lower to 0.04 lower; 2 trials, 2861 participants; moderate-quality evidence), but there was a higher observed number of gastrointestinal side effects among participants treated with SSRIs compared to placebo (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 4.76; P = 0.05; 2 studies, 148 participants; moderate-quality evidence), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). For seizures there was no evidence of a substantial difference. When we included all trials in a sensitivity analysis, irrespective of risk of bias, SSRIs appeared to reduce disability scores but not dependence. One large trial (FOCUS) dominated the results. We identified several ongoing trials, including two large trials that together will recruit more than 3000 participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no reliable evidence that SSRIs should be used routinely to promote recovery after stroke. Meta-analysis of the trials at low risk of bias indicate that SSRIs do not improve recovery from stroke. We identified potential improvements in disability only in the analyses which included trials at high risk of bias. A further meta-analysis of large ongoing trials will be required to determine the generalisability of these findings.