Effectiveness of routine measurement of health-related quality of life in improving the outcomes of patients with musculoskeletal problems-a cluster randomised controlled trial: protocol paper

Patient enablement and health-related quality of life for patients with chronic back and knee pain: a cross-sectional study in primary care

BACKGROUND

Chronic back and knee pain impairs health- related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient enablement can improve HRQoL.

AIM

To determine whether enablement was a moderator of the effect of chronic back and knee pain on HRQoL.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional study of Chinese patients with chronic back and knee problems in public primary care clinics in Hong Kong.

METHOD

Each participant completed the Chinese Patient Enablement Instrument-2 (PEI-2), the Chinese Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Pain Rating Scale (PRS). Multivariable regression examined the effects of PRS score and PEI-2 score on WOMAC total score. A moderation regression model and simple slope analysis were used to evaluate whether the interaction between enablement (PEI-2) and pain (PRS) had a significant effect on HRQoL (WOMAC).

RESULTS

Valid patient-reported outcome data from 1306 participants were analysed. PRS score was associated with WOMAC total score (β = 0.326, P<0.001), whereas PEI-2 score was associated inversely with WOMAC total score (β = -0.260, P<0.001) and PRS score. The effect of the interaction between PRS and PEI-2 (PRS × PEI-2) scores on WOMAC total score was significant (β = -0.191, P<0.001) suggesting PEI-2 was a moderator. Simple slope analyses showed that the relationship between PRS and WOMAC was stronger for participants with a low level of PEI-2 (gradient 3.056) than for those with a high level of PEI-2 (gradient 1.746).

CONCLUSION

Patient enablement moderated the impact of pain on HRQoL. A higher level of enablement can lessen impairment in HRQoL associated with chronic back and knee pain.

Endovascular Thrombectomy preceded by intravenous Alteplase versus endovascular Thrombectomy alone in Han Chinese patients treated for acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion: a single-center retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The American Heart Association/ American Stroke Association and the Chinese Stroke Association guidelines are recommending intravenous alteplase intervention before endovascular thrombectomy if patients are eligible to do so but the benefits of endovascular thrombectomy are different in Chinese patients with stroke than those of the white patients. The objective of the study was to compare outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy with intravenous alteplase against those treated with endovascular thrombectomy alone.

METHODS

A report is a retrospective analysis of comparing demographics, imaging, clinical and adverse outcomes in the Han Chinese patient who underwent mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion, with or without preceding intravenous alteplase administration. Patients with terminus and non-terminus intracranial occlusions and ≤ 2 points neurologic deficit underwent endovascular thrombectomy preceded by 0.9 mg/ kg intravenous alteplase (ET cohort, n = 184) and those who had contra-indication for intravenous alteplase were treated with endovascular thrombectomy alone (EA cohort, n = 141).

RESULTS

The most common procedural complications were embolization into new territory (p = 0.866) and uneventful artery vasospasm (p = 0.712). Insignificant differences were reported for any procedural complications (p = 0.991), imaging outcomes, the modified Rankin scale score (p = 0.663), and death (28 vs. 24, p = 0.761) within 90 days between patients of both cohorts. At the discharge of the hospital, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores of patients of the ET cohort were lower than those of the EA cohort (8.58 ± 3.79 vs. 10.23 ± 4.97, p = 0.003). The Barthel Index of survivors at 90 days after endovascular thrombectomy was higher for patients of the ET cohort than those of the EA cohort (87.47 ± 12.58 vs. 84.01 ± 13.47, p = 0.032). The most common adverse effect was asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (p = 0.297). Insignificant differences were reported for adverse effects after thrombectomy between survivors of both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome measures in Han Chinese patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular thrombectomy alone were statistically the same as those treated with endovascular thrombectomy plus intravenous alteplase.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Iii TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 4.