Hydration and nutrition care practices in stroke: findings from the UK and Australia.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration and malnutrition are common in hospitalised patients following stroke leading to poor outcomes including increased mortality. Little is known about hydration and nutrition care practices in hospital to avoid dehydration or malnutrition, and how these practices vary in different countries. This study sought to capture how the hydration and nutrition needs of patients' post-stroke are assessed and managed in the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia (AUS). AIM: To examine and compare current in-hospital hydration and nutrition care practice for patients with stroke in the UK and Australia. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between April and November 2019. Questionnaires were mailed to stroke specialist nurses in UK and Australian hospitals providing post-stroke inpatient acute care or rehabilitation. Non-respondents were contacted up to five times. RESULTS: We received 150/174 (86%) completed surveys from hospitals in the UK, and 120/162 (74%) in Australia. Of the 270 responding hospitals, 96% reported undertaking assessment of hydration status during an admission, with nurses most likely to complete assessments (85%). The most common methods of admission assessment were visual assessment of the patient (UK 62%; AUS 58%), weight (UK 52%; AUS 52%), and body mass index (UK 47%; AUS 42%). Almost all (99%) sites reported that nutrition status was assessed at some point during admission, and these were mainly completed by nurses (91%). Use of standardised nutrition screening tools were more common in the UK (91%) than Australia (60%). Similar proportions of hydration management decisions were made by physicians (UK 84%; AUS 83%), and nutrition management decisions by dietitians (UK 98%; AUS 97%). CONCLUSION: Despite broadly similar hydration and nutrition care practices after stroke in the UK and Australia, some variability was identified. Although nutrition assessment was more often informed by structured screening tools, the routine assessment of hydration was generally not. Nurses were responsible for assessment and monitoring, while dietitians and physicians undertook decision-making regarding management. Hydration care could be improved through the development of standardised assessment tools. This study highlights the need for increased implementation and use of evidence-based protocols in stroke hydration and nutrition care to improve patient outcomes.

Pharmacological, non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological interventions, and their combination, for treating depression after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Depression is an important morbidity associated with stroke that impacts on recovery, yet is often undetected or inadequately treated. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological intervention, non-invasive brain stimulation, psychological therapy, or combinations of these to treat depression after stroke. SEARCH METHODS: This is a living systematic review. We search for new evidence every two months and update the review when we identify relevant new evidence. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review. We searched the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Stroke, and Cochrane Depression Anxiety and Neurosis, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases, two clinical trials registers, reference lists and conference proceedings (February 2022). We contacted study authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing: 1) pharmacological interventions with placebo; 2) non-invasive brain stimulation with sham stimulation or usual care; 3) psychological therapy with usual care or attention control; 4) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with pharmacological intervention and usual care or attention control; 5) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention and sham stimulation or usual care; 6) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus sham brain stimulation or usual care and psychological therapy; 7) pharmacological intervention and psychological therapy with placebo and psychological therapy; 8) pharmacological intervention and non-invasive brain stimulation with placebo and non-invasive brain stimulation; and 9) non-invasive brain stimulation and psychological therapy versus non-invasive brain stimulation and usual care or attention control, with the intention of treating depression after stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data from included studies. We calculated mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed heterogeneity using the I² statistic and certainty of the evidence according to GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 trials (72 comparisons) with 5831 participants. Data were available for: 1) 20 comparisons; 2) nine comparisons; 3) 25 comparisons; 4) three comparisons; 5) 14 comparisons; and 6) one comparison. We found no trials for comparisons 7 to 9. Comparison 1: Pharmacological interventions Very low-certainty evidence from eight trials suggests pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88; P = 0.002; 8 RCTs; 1025 participants) at end of treatment and very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that pharmacological interventions decreased the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.70; P = 0.0002; 6 RCTs; 511 participants) compared to placebo. More adverse events related to the central nervous system (CNS) (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.15; P = 0.008; 5 RCTs; 488 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and gastrointestinal system (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.19; P = 0.002; 4 RCTs; 473 participants; very low-certainty evidence) were noted in the pharmacological intervention than in the placebo group. Comparison 2: Non-invasive brain stimulation Very low-certainty evidence from two trials show that non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.14; P = 0.14; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) and the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.52, 1.37; P = 0.49; 2 RCTs; 130 participants) compared to sham stimulation. Non-invasive brain stimulation resulted in no deaths. Comparison 3: Psychological therapy Very low-certainty evidence from six trials suggests that psychological therapy decreased the number of people meeting the study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95; P = 0.01; 521 participants) compared to usual care/attention control. No trials of psychological therapy reported on the outcome inadequate response to treatment. No differences in the number of deaths or adverse events were found in the psychological therapy group compared to the usual care/attention control group. Comparison 4: Pharmacological interventions with psychological therapy No trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes. Combination therapy resulted in no deaths. Comparison 5: Pharmacological interventions with non-invasive brain stimulation Non-invasive brain stimulation with pharmacological intervention reduced the number of people meeting study criteria for depression at end of treatment (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.91; P = 0.002; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; low-certainty evidence) but not the number of people with inadequate response to treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.30; P = 0.75; 3 RCTs; 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to pharmacological therapy alone. Very low-certainty evidence from five trials suggest no difference in deaths between this combination therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.16; P = 0.93; 487 participants) compared to pharmacological therapy intervention and sham stimulation or usual care. Comparison 6: Non-invasive brain stimulation with psychological therapy No trials of this combination reported on the primary outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence suggests that pharmacological, psychological and combination therapies can reduce the prevalence of depression while non-invasive brain stimulation had little to no effect on the prevalence of depression. Pharmacological intervention was associated with adverse events related to the CNS and the gastrointestinal tract. More research is required before recommendations can be made about the routine use of such treatments.

ANTECEDENTES: La depresión tiene una morbilidad importante asociada con el accidente cerebrovascular que repercute en la recuperación, pero que a menudo no se detecta o se trata de manera inadecuada. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar los efectos beneficiosos y perjudiciales de las intervenciones farmacológicas, la estimulación cerebral no invasiva, la terapia psicológica o las combinaciones de éstas para tratar la depresión después del accidente cerebrovascular. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Esta es una revisión sistemática continua. Cada dos meses se busca nueva evidencia y la revisión se actualiza cuando se identifica evidencia nueva relevante. Consultar el estado actual de esta revisión en la Base de Datos Cochrane de Revisiones Sistemáticas (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Se realizaron búsquedas en los Registros especializados del Grupo Cochrane de Accidentes cerebrovasculares (Cochrane Stroke) y del Grupo Cochrane de Depresión, ansiedad y neurosis (Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis), en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, otras cinco bases de datos, dos registros de ensayos clínicos, listas de referencias y resúmenes de congresos (febrero de 2022). Se estableció contacto con autores de estudios. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) que compararan: 1) intervenciones farmacológicas con placebo; 2) estimulación cerebral no invasiva con estimulación simulada o atención habitual; 3) terapia psicológica con atención habitual o control de atención; 4) intervención farmacológica y terapia psicológica con intervención farmacológica y atención habitual o control de atención; 5) intervención farmacológica y estimulación cerebral no invasiva con intervención farmacológica y estimulación simulada o atención habitual; 6) estimulación cerebral no invasiva y terapia psicológica versus estimulación cerebral simulada o atención habitual y terapia psicológica; 7) intervención farmacológica y terapia psicológica con placebo y terapia psicológica; 8) intervención farmacológica y estimulación cerebral no invasiva con placebo y estimulación cerebral no invasiva; y 9) estimulación cerebral no invasiva y terapia psicológica versus estimulación cerebral no invasiva y atención habitual o control de atención, con la intención de tratar la depresión después del accidente cerebrovascular. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, seleccionaron los estudios, evaluaron el riesgo de sesgo y extrajeron los datos de los estudios incluidos. Se calculó la diferencia de medias (DM) o la diferencia de medias estandarizada (DME) para los datos continuos, y la razón de riesgos (RR) para los datos dicotómicos, con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%. La heterogeneidad se evaluó mediante la estadística I² y la certeza de la evidencia según GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 65 ensayos (72 comparaciones) con 5831 participantes. Se dispuso de datos para: 1) 20 comparaciones; 2) nueve comparaciones; 3) 25 comparaciones; 4) tres comparaciones; 5) 14 comparaciones; y 6) una comparación. No se encontraron ensayos para las comparaciones 7 a 9. Comparación 1: Intervenciones farmacológicas Evidencia de certeza muy baja de ocho ensayos indica que las intervenciones farmacológicas disminuyeron el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión (RR 0,70; IC del 95%: 0,55 a 0,88; p = 0,002; ocho ECA; 1025 participantes) al final del tratamiento y evidencia de certeza muy baja de seis ensayos indica que las intervenciones farmacológicas disminuyeron el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,47; IC del 95%: 0,32 a 0,70; p = 0,0002; seis ECA; 511 participantes) en comparación con placebo. Se observaron más eventos adversos relacionados con el sistema nervioso central (SNC) (RR 1,55; IC del 95%: 1,12 a 2,15; p = 0,008; cinco ECA; 488 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) y el sistema gastrointestinal (RR 1,62; IC del 95%: 1,19 a 2,19; p = 0,002; cuatro ECA; 473 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en el grupo de intervención farmacológica que en el grupo placebo. Comparación 2: Estimulación cerebral no invasiva Evidencia de certeza muy baja de dos ensayos muestra que la estimulación cerebral no invasiva tuvo poco o ningún efecto sobre el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión (RR 0,67; IC del 95%: 0,39 a 1,14; p = 0,14; dos ECA; 130 participantes) y el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,84; IC del 95%: 0,52 a 1,37; p = 0,49; dos ECA; 130 participantes) en comparación con la estimulación simulada. La estimulación cerebral no invasiva no provocó muertes. Comparación 3: Terapia psicológica Evidencia de certeza muy baja de seis ensayos indica que la terapia psicológica disminuyó el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión al final del tratamiento (RR 0,77; IC del 95%: 0,62 a 0,95; p = 0,01; 521 participantes) en comparación con atención habitual/control de atención. Ningún ensayo de terapia psicológica informó sobre el desenlace respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento. No se encontraron diferencias en el número de muertes o eventos adversos en el grupo de terapia psicológica en comparación con el grupo de control de atención/atención habitual. Comparación 4: Intervenciones farmacológicas con terapia psicológica Ningún ensayo de esta combinación informó sobre los desenlaces principales. El tratamiento combinado no provocó muertes. Comparación 5: Intervenciones farmacológicas con estimulación cerebral no invasiva La estimulación cerebral no invasiva con intervención farmacológica redujo el número de personas que cumplían los criterios del estudio para la depresión al final del tratamiento (RR 0,77; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 0,91; p = 0,002; tres ECA; 392 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), pero no el número de personas con respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento (RR 0,95; IC del 95%: 0,69 a 1,30; p = 0,75; tres ECA; 392 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja) en comparación con el tratamiento farmacológico solo. Evidencia de certeza muy baja de cinco ensayos no indica diferencias en las muertes entre este tratamiento combinado (RR 1,06; IC del 95%: 0,27 a 4,16; p = 0,93; 487 participantes) en comparación con la intervención de tratamiento farmacológico y la estimulación simulada o la atención habitual. Comparación 6: Estimulación cerebral no invasiva con terapia psicológica Ningún ensayo de esta combinación informó sobre los desenlaces principales. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Evidencia de certeza muy baja indica que los tratamientos farmacológicos, las terapias psicológicas y los tratamientos combinados pueden reducir la prevalencia de la depresión, mientras que la estimulación cerebral no invasiva tuvo poco o ningún efecto sobre la prevalencia de la depresión. Las intervenciones farmacológicas se asociaron con eventos adversos relacionados con el SNC y el sistema gastrointestinal. Se necesitan más estudios de investigación antes de poder hacer recomendaciones sobre el uso habitual de dichos tratamientos.

Screening for aspiration risk associated with dysphagia in acute stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke can affect people's ability to swallow, resulting in passage of some food and drink into the airway. This can cause choking, chest infection, malnutrition and dehydration, reduced rehabilitation, increased risk of anxiety and depression, longer hospital stay, increased likelihood of discharge to a care home, and increased risk of death. Early identification and management of disordered swallowing reduces risk of these difficulties. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To determine the diagnostic accuracy and the sensitivity and specificity of bedside screening tests for detecting risk of aspiration associated with dysphagia in people with acute stroke Secondary objectives • To assess the influence of the following sources of heterogeneity on the diagnostic accuracy of bedside screening tools for dysphagia - Patient demographics (e.g. age, gender) - Time post stroke that the study was conducted (from admission to 48 hours) to ensure only hyperacute and acute stroke swallow screening tools are identified - Definition of dysphagia used by the study - Level of training of nursing staff (both grade and training in the screening tool) - Low-quality studies identified from the methodological quality checklist - Type and threshold of index test - Type of reference test SEARCH METHODS: In June 2017 and December 2019, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database via the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; the reference lists of included studies; and grey literature sources. We contacted experts in the field to identify any ongoing studies and those potentially missed by the search strategy. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that were single-gate or two-gate studies comparing a bedside screening tool administered by nurses or other healthcare professionals (HCPs) with expert or instrumental assessment for detection of aspiration associated with dysphagia in adults with acute stroke admitted to hospital. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened each study using the eligibility criteria and then extracted data, including the sensitivity and specificity of each index test against the reference test. A third review author was available at each stage to settle disagreements. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. We identified insufficient studies for each index test, so we performed no meta-analysis. Diagnostic accuracy data were presented as sensitivities and specificities for the index tests. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we included 25 studies in the review, four of which we included as narratives (with no accuracy statistics reported). The included studies involved 3953 participants and 37 screening tests. Of these, 24 screening tests used water only, six used water and other consistencies, and seven used other methods. For index tests using water only, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 46% to 100% and from 43% to 100%, respectively; for those using water and other consistencies, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 75% to 100% and from 69% to 90%, respectively; and for those using other methods, sensitivity and specificity ranged from 29% to 100% and from 39% to 86%, respectively. Twenty screening tests used expert assessment or the Mann Assessment of Swallowing Ability (MASA) as the reference, six used fibreoptic endoscopic evaluation of swallowing (FEES), and 11 used videofluoroscopy (VF). Fifteen screening tools had an outcome of aspiration risk, 20 screening tools had an outcome of dysphagia, and two narrative papers did not report the outcome. Twenty-one screening tests were carried out by nurses, and 16 were carried out by other HCPs (not including speech and language therapists (SLTs)). We assessed a total of six studies as low risk across all four QUADAS-2 risk of bias domains, and we rated 15 studies as low concern across all three applicability domains. No single study demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity with low risk of bias for all domains. The best performing combined water swallow and instrumental tool was the Bedside Aspiration test (n = 50), the best performing water plus other consistencies tool was the Gugging Swallowing Screen (GUSS; n = 30), and the best water only swallow screening tool was the Toronto Bedside Swallowing Screening Test (TOR-BSST; n = 24). All tools demonstrated combined highest sensitivity and specificity and low risk of bias for all domains. However, clinicians should be cautious in their interpretation of these findings, as these tests are based on single studies with small sample sizes, which limits the estimates of reliability of screening tests. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to identify a single swallow screening tool with high and precisely estimated sensitivity and specificity based on at least one trial with low risk of bias. However, we were able to offer recommendations for further high-quality studies that are needed to improve the accuracy and clinical utility of bedside screening tools.

The effects of a dialogue-based intervention to promote psychosocial well-being after stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a dialogue-based intervention targeting psychosocial well-being at 12 months post-stroke. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled trial with two parallel groups. SETTING: Community. SUBJECTS: Three-hundred and twenty-two adults (⩾18 years) with stroke within the last four weeks were randomly allocated into intervention group (n = 166) or control group (n = 156). INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group received a dialogue-based intervention to promote psychosocial well-being, comprising eight individual 1-1½ hour sessions delivered during the first six months post-stroke. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28). Secondary outcome measures included the Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale-39g, the Sense of Coherence scale, and the Yale Brown single-item questionnaire. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 66.8 (12.1) years in the intervention group and 65.7 (13.3) years in the control group. At 12 months post-stroke, the mean (SE) GHQ-28 score was 20.6 (0.84) in the intervention group and 19.9 (0.85) in the control group. There were no between-group differences in psychosocial well-being at 12 months post-stroke (mean difference: -0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): -3.08, 1.60). The secondary outcomes showed no statistically significant between-group difference in health-related quality of life, sense of coherence, or depression at 12 months. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial did not demonstrate lower levels of emotional distress and anxiety or higher levels of health-related quality of life in the intervention group (dialogue-based intervention) as compared to the control group (usual care) at 12 months post-stroke.

Etiologic Workup in Cases of Cryptogenic Stroke: A Systematic Review of International Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Background and Purpose- Identifying the etiology of acute ischemic stroke is essential for effective secondary prevention. However, in at least one third of ischemic strokes, existing investigative protocols fail to determine the underlying cause. Establishing etiology is complicated by variation in clinical practice, often reflecting preferences of treating clinicians and variable availability of investigative techniques. In this review, we systematically assess the extent to which there exists consensus, disagreement, and gaps in clinical practice recommendations on etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke. Methods- We identified clinical practice guidelines/consensus statements through searches of 4 electronic databases and hand-searching of websites/reference lists. Two reviewers independently assessed reports for eligibility. We extracted data on report characteristics and recommendations relating to etiologic workup in acute ischemic stroke and in cases of cryptogenic stroke. Quality was assessed using the AGREE II tool (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation). Recommendations were synthesized according to a published algorithm for diagnostic evaluation in cryptogenic stroke. Results- We retrieved 16 clinical practice guidelines and 7 consensus statements addressing acute stroke management (n=12), atrial fibrillation (n=5), imaging (n=5), and secondary prevention (n=1). Five reports were of overall high quality. For all patients, guidelines recommended routine brain imaging, noninvasive vascular imaging, a 12-lead ECG, and routine blood tests/laboratory investigations. Additionally, ECG monitoring (>24 hours) was recommended for patients with suspected embolic stroke and echocardiography for patients with suspected cardiac source. Three reports recommended investigations for rarer causes of stroke. None of the reports provided guidance on the extent of investigation needed before classifying a stroke as cryptogenic. Conclusions- While consensus exists surrounding standard etiologic workup, there is little agreement on more advanced investigations for rarer causes of acute ischemic stroke. This gap in guidance, and in the underpinning evidence, demonstrates missed opportunities to better understand and protect against ongoing stroke risk. Registration- URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019127822.

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 .).

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience clinically significant levels of anxiety at some point after stroke. Physicians can treat these patients with antidepressants or other anxiety-reducing drugs, or both, or they can provide psychological therapy. This review looks at available evidence for these interventions. This is an update of the review first published in October 2011. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pharmaceutical, psychological, complementary, or alternative therapeutic interventions in treating stroke patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms. The secondary objective was to identify whether any of these interventions for anxiety had an effect on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, caregiver burden, or risk of death. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (January 2017). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 1: searched January 2017); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017) in Ovid; Embase (1980 to January 2017) in Ovid; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to January 2017) in EBSCO; and PsycINFO (1800 to January 2017) in Ovid. We conducted backward citation searches of reviews identified through database searches and forward citation searches of included studies. We contacted researchers known to be involved in related trials, and we searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials including participants with a diagnosis of both stroke and anxiety for which treatment was intended to reduce anxiety. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a narrative review. We planned to do a meta-analysis but were unable to do so as included studies were not sufficiently comparable. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (four interventions) involving 196 participants with stroke and co-morbid anxiety. One trial (described as a 'pilot study') randomised 21 community-dwelling stroke survivors to four-week use of a relaxation CD or to wait list control. This trial assessed anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and reported a reduction in anxiety at three months among participants who had used the relaxation CD (mean (standard deviation (SD) 6.9 (± 4.9) and 11.0 (± 3.9)), Cohen's d = 0.926, P value = 0.001; 19 participants analysed).The second trial randomised 81 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy, or standard care. Mean levels of anxiety severity scores based on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at follow-up were 5.4 (SD ± 1.7), 3.8 (SD ± 1.8), and 12.8 (SD ± 1.9), respectively (P value < 0.01).The third trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean levels of anxiety based on the HAM-A were 6.5 (SD ± 3.1) and 12.6 (SD ± 3.4) in the two groups, respectively, which represents a significant difference (P value < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting, or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. Trial authors provided no information about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. The trial of relaxation therapy reported no adverse events.The quality of the evidence was very low. Each study included a small number of participants, particularly the study of relaxation therapy. Studies of pharmacological agents presented details too limited to allow judgement of selection, performance, and detection bias and lack of placebo treatment in control groups. Although the study of relaxation therapy had allocated participants to treatment using an adequate method of randomisation, study recruitment methods might have introduced bias, and drop-outs in the intervention group may have influenced results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. Further well-conducted randomised controlled trials (using placebo or attention controls) are required to assess pharmacological agents and psychological therapies.

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience anxiety at some point after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine if any treatment for anxiety after stroke decreases the proportion of patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms, and to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, risk of death or caregiver burden. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (October 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2010), EMBASE (1947 to October 2010), PsycINFO (1806 to October 2010), Allied and Complementary Medicine database (AMED) (1985 to October 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) (1982 to October 2010), Proquest Digital Dissertations (1861 to October 2010), and Psychological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE) (2004 to October 2010). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched trial registries and major international stroke conference proceedings, scanned reference lists, and contacted select individuals known to the review team who are actively involved in psychological aspects of stroke research, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. Randomised trials of any intervention in patients with stroke where the treatment of anxiety was an outcome were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for analysis. We performed a narrative review. A meta-analysis was planned but not carried out as studies were not of sufficient quality to warrant doing so. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials (three interventions) involving 175 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression in the review. Both trials used the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) to assess anxiety, and neither included a placebo control group. One trial randomised 81 patients to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy or standard care. Mean level of anxiety severity scores were 58% and 71% lower in the paroxetine, and paroxetine plus psychotherapy groups respectively compared with those in standard care at follow-up (P < 0.01). The second trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean level of anxiety was significantly lower for those receiving buspirone relative to controls (P < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. No information was provided about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. The data available suggest that pharmaceutical therapy (paroxetine and buspirone) may be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in stroke patients with co-morbid anxiety and depression. No information was available for stroke patients with anxiety only. Randomised placebo controlled trials are needed.

The 12-month effects of early motivational interviewing after acute stroke: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether motivational interviewing (MI), a patient-centered counseling technique, can benefit patients' mood and mortality poststroke. METHODS: This was a single-center, open, randomized, controlled trial. The setting was a hospital with a stroke unit. Four hundred eleven consecutive patients on the stroke register were >18 years old, not known to be moving out-of-area postdischarge, not receiving psychiatric or clinical psychology intervention, and were without severe cognitive or communication problems preventing participation in interviews. All patients received usual stroke care. Patients in the intervention group also received 4 individual, weekly sessions of MI. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with normal mood measured by the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (normal <5; low ≥5) using a mailed questionnaire at 12 months poststroke. RESULTS: At 12-month follow-up (including imputed data), 37.7% patients in the control group and 48.0% patients in the intervention group had normal mood. Twenty-five (12.8%) of 195 patients in the control group and 13 (6.5%) of 199 patients in the intervention group had died. A significant benefit of motivational interviewing over usual stroke care was found for mood (P=0.020; OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.08 to 2.55) and mortality (P=0.035; OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.06 to 4.38). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that motivational interviewing improves patients' mood and reduces mortality 12 months poststroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN54465472.

The use of nurses' and carers' observations in the identification of poststroke depression.

AIM: This paper is a report of a study to determine the accuracy and utility of an observational screening tool (Signs of Depression Scale), when rated by nurses and carers for detecting depression in patients who have recently had a stroke. BACKGROUND: Depression following a stroke is common and adversely affects recovery and rehabilitation. Identifying depression when patients have communication and cognitive difficulties is especially problematic. Screening tools which rely solely on observation may be beneficial in this group. METHOD: A cross-sectional study of people admitted with an acute stroke compared a clinical diagnosis of depression by a psychiatrist (the gold standard) with the Signs of Depression Scale completed by nurses and carers. The agreement between nurses' and carers' ratings was also explored. Data were collected over 10 months (December 2004-October 2005). FINDINGS: Seventy-one patients were included in the study, median age 70 [inter-quartile ranges (IQR) 59-76], including 40 (56.3%) males. The psychiatrist classified 25/71 (35.2%) patients as depressed. Using the recommended cut-point of 2 or more on the Signs of Depression Scale, the nurse and carer respectively rated 27/71 (38.0%) and 18/30 (60.0%) patients as potentially depressed. The proportion of patients correctly identified as depressed by the test (sensitivity) when rated by nurses was 64%, and the proportion of patients not depressed who were correctly identified by the test (specificity) was 61%, whereas carers achieved sensitivity 90% and specificity 35%. The optimal cut-point for carers was higher at 4 or more. Inter-rater agreement on the Signs of Depression Scale between nurses and carers was fair (ICC = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.09-0.68). CONCLUSION: The Signs of Depression Scale is easily completed by clinical staff, although we found the sensitivity when completed by nurses to be low. Information from carers shows potential to improve screening and it is important for nurses to value the knowledge and skills of carers in detecting depression following a stroke. Further refinement of the Signs of Depression Scale, with accompanying research, is required.

Evaluation of a single-item screening tool for depression after stroke: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the accuracy and utility of a single-item screening tool for depression (the Yale, taken from the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale) in patients who have recently had a stroke. DESIGN: Comparison of a clinical classification of depression with a screening tool in a defined cohort. SETTING: A large teaching hospital in Liverpool, UK. SUBJECTS: One hundred and twenty-two consecutive people admitted with an acute stroke who did not have severe cognitive or communication problems, and who were still in hospital in the second week post stroke. MAIN MEASURES: Classification of depression using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale was compared with the Yale, a single-item screening tool. RESULTS: When comparing the classification of depression according to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale and the response to the Yale we found that at week 2 the Yale had a sensitivity of 86% (57/66), a specificity of 84% (46/55), a positive predictive value of 86% (57/66) and a negative predictive value of 84% (46/55), with an overall efficiency of 85% (103/121); prevalence of depression was 54% (according to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale). At month 3 the Yale had a sensitivity of 95% (52/55), a specificity of 89% (32/36), a positive predictive value of 93% (52/56) and a negative predictive value of 91% (32/35), with an overall efficiency of 92% (84/91); prevalence of depression was 60%. CONCLUSIONS: The Yale, which only requires a 'yes' or 'no' answer to a single question, may prove a useful screening tool in identifying possible depression in people with stroke both two weeks and three months post stroke.

Motivational interviewing early after acute stroke: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether motivational interviewing, a patient-centered counseling technique, can benefit patients' mood 3 months after stroke. METHODS: A single-center, open, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at a single hospital with a stroke unit. Subjects consisted of 411 consecutive patients on the stroke register who were over 18 years of age and who did not have severe cognitive and communication problems that would prevent them from taking part in an interview; were not known to be moving out of the area after discharge; and were not already receiving psychiatric or clinical psychology intervention. All patients received usual stroke care. Patients in the intervention group received 4 individual, weekly sessions of motivational interviewing with a trained therapist in addition to usual stroke care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with normal mood at 3 months poststroke measured by the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (normal, <5; low > or=5) using a mailed questionnaire. RESULTS: Eighty-one of 207 (39.1%) patients in the control group and 100 of 204 (49.0%) patients in the intervention group had normal mood at follow up. A significant benefit of motivational interviewing over usual stroke care (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.46, P=0.03) was found. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest motivational interviewing leads to an improvement in patients' mood 3 months after stroke.

Can nurses help identify patients with depression following stroke? A pilot study using two methods of detection.

AIM: This paper reports a study to determine the accuracy of the Geriatric Mental State examination and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, when administered by a nurse, in detecting depression in patients who have recently had a stroke. BACKGROUND: After a stroke, survivors spend considerable amounts of time in the direct care of nurses. Many show signs of depression, and this has been associated with an adverse effect on recovery and rehabilitation. Identifying those with depression when they have communication and cognitive difficulties is especially difficult. Treatments are available to assist in the management of depression, and early detection and intervention may assist in this process. METHOD: A cross-sectional pilot study was conducted, comparing (a) clinical diagnosis of depression by a psychiatrist with (b) two clinical interviews, using the Geriatric Mental State examination and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, conducted by a nurse. The data were collected in 2002. FINDINGS: Twenty-eight patients, who were still in hospital in the second week poststroke, were included. The median age was 72 (interquartile range: 61-78). There were 14 males. The psychiatrist rated seven (25%) patients as depressed. The Geriatric Mental State examination had a sensitivity of 71%, a specificity of 67%, a positive predictive value of 42%, a negative predictive value of 88% in detecting depression and an overall efficiency of 68%. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 65%, a positive predictive value of 54%, a negative predictive value of 100% and an overall efficiency of 75%. CONCLUSION: In this study, the Geriatric Mental State examination and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale were at least as efficient at detecting the depression in patients who have had a stroke. However, as the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale is quicker to administer, it may prove more useful to nurses clinically.