Validity of the modified Rankin Scale in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a randomized study

PURPOSE

The modified Rankin Scale (mRS), a clinician-reported outcome measure of global disability, has never been validated in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The aims of this study are to assess: (1) convergent validity of the mRS; (2) responsiveness of the mRS; and (3) the distribution of mRS scores across patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

This is a prospective randomized multicenter study. The mRS was scored by a physician for all patients, and subsequently by structured interview for half of the patients and by self-assessment for the other half. All patients completed EuroQoL 5D-5L, RAND-36, Stroke Specific Quality of Life scale (SS-QoL) and Global Perceived Effect (GPE) questionnaires. Convergent validity and responsiveness were assessed by testing hypotheses.

RESULTS

In total, 149 patients with aSAH were included for analysis. The correlation of the mRS with EQ-5D-5L was r = - 0.546, while with RAND-36 physical and mental component scores the correlation was r = - 0.439and r = - 0.574 respectively, and with SS-QoL it was r = - 0.671. Three out of four hypotheses for convergent validity were met. The mRS assessed through structured interviews was more highly correlated with the mental component score than with the physical component score of RAND-36. Improvement in terms of GPE was indicated by 83% of patients; the mean change score of these patients on the mRS was - 0.08 (SD 0.915). None of the hypotheses for responsiveness were met.

CONCLUSION

The results show that the mRS generally correlates with other instruments, as expected, but it lacks responsiveness. A structured interview of the mRS is best for detecting disabling neuropsychological complaints.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://trialsearch.who.int ; Unique identifier: NL7859, Date of first administration: 08-07-2019.

The SOS-SAH questionnaire in clinical practice: a multi-method evaluation study

BACKGROUND

In patients with mild disabilities after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), invisible symptoms might be easily overlooked during consultations in the outpatient clinic. We hypothesize that the Questionnaire for the Screening of Symptoms in aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SOS-SAH), a disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, might aid in screening for symptoms after aSAH. The objective of this explorative study is to evaluate the perceived impact of using the SOS-SAH in daily clinical practice for patients after aSAH, as well as to explore potential barriers to further implementation.

METHODS

This multi-method study consists of a quantitative and a qualitative component. To evaluate differences in quality of care, a patient experience survey was sent to patients receiving usual care and to patients who received the SOS-SAH. A multiple linear regression model was applied, with the intervention group and case mix adjusters as independent variables. We described differences in the number of symptoms discussed between patients receiving usual care and those receiving care post-implementation. Following implementation, 16 patients and 6 healthcare professionals were interviewed about their perceptions concerning the impact of and barriers to using the SOS-SAH. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the main themes.

RESULTS

The survey did not reveal any differences between the usual-care group and the post-implementation group on the scales of the patient experience survey. After implementation of the SOS-SAH, the number of symptoms discussed during consultation did not increase. The interviews suggest that the SOS-SAH may improve the preparation of patients by providing them with greater insight into their complaints and by raising issues for the consultation. It could also enhance the structure and efficiency of consultation, in addition to improving communication about issues that matter to patients. All patients and healthcare professionals recommended continuing the use of the SOS-SAH in daily practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no quantitative improvements were found in patient experience and symptoms discussed during consultation, implementation of the SOS-SAH could aid in screening for symptoms in patients after aSAH, and it might have a positive influence on patient preparation, while helping to structure consultations between patients and healthcare professionals.

Effect of atrial fibrillation on endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis of individual patient data from six randomised trials: Results from the HERMES collaboration

Background

Atrial fibrillation is an important risk factor for ischemic stroke, and is associated with an increased risk of poor outcome after ischemic stroke. Endovascular thrombectomy is safe and effective in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion of the anterior circulation. This meta-analysis aims to investigate whether there is an interaction between atrial fibrillation and treatment effect of endovascular thrombectomy, and secondarily whether atrial fibrillation is associated with worse outcome in patients with ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion.

Methods

Individual patient data were from six of the recent randomised clinical trials (MR CLEAN, EXTEND-IA, REVASCAT, SWIFT PRIME, ESCAPE, PISTE) in which endovascular thrombectomy plus standard care was compared to standard care alone. Primary outcome measure was the shift on the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were functional independence (mRS 0–2) at 90 days, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at 24 h, symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage and mortality at 90 days. The primary effect parameter was the adjusted common odds ratio, estimated with ordinal logistic regression (shift analysis); treatment effect modification of atrial fibrillation was assessed with a multiplicative interaction term.

Results

Among 1351 patients, 447 patients had atrial fibrillation, 224 of whom were treated with endovascular thrombectomy. We found no interaction of atrial fibrillation with treatment effect of endovascular thrombectomy for both primary (p-value for interaction: 0.58) and secondary outcomes. Regardless of treatment allocation, we found no difference in primary outcome (mRS at 90 days: aOR 1.11 (95% CI 0.89–1.38) and secondary outcomes between patients with and without atrial fibrillation.

Conclusion

We found no interaction of atrial fibrillation on treatment effect of endovascular thrombectomy, and no difference in outcome between large vessel occlusion stroke patients with and without atrial fibrillation.