Krishna A Dani1, Michael T McCormick, Keith W Muir. 1. Division of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Glasgow, Institute of Neurological Sciences, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow G51 4TF, Scotland, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: European directives and legislation in some countries forbid inclusion of subjects incapable of consent in research if recruitment of patients capable of consent will yield similar results. We compared brain lesion volumes in stroke patients deemed to have capacity to consent with those defined as incapacitated. METHODS: Data were obtained from 3 trials recruiting patients primarily with cortical stroke syndromes. Patients were recruited within 24 hours of onset and used MRI based selection or outcome criteria. Method of recruitment was recorded with stroke severity, age, and brain lesion volumes on Diffusion Weighted Imaging. RESULTS: Of the 56 subjects included, 38 (68%) were recruited by assent and 18 (32%) by consent. The assent group had a median lesion volume of 18.35 cubic centimetres (cc) (interquartile range [IQR] 8.27-110.31 cc), compared to 2.79 cc (IQR 1.31-12.33 cc) when patients consented (P=0.0004). Lesions were smaller than 5 cc in 7/38 (18%) in the assent group and 11/18 (61%) in the consent group (P=0.0024). There was good correlation between neurological deficit by NIH stroke scale score and lesion volume (r=0.584, P<0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrated NIHSS or lesion volume predicted capacity to consent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with acute stroke who retain capacity to consent have significantly smaller infarct volumes than those incapable of consent, and these are frequently below the limits where measurement error significantly compromises valid use of volumetric end points. Only a small proportion of patients with capacity to consent would be eligible for, and contribute usefully to, most acute stroke trial protocols.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: European directives and legislation in some countries forbid inclusion of subjects incapable of consent in research if recruitment of patients capable of consent will yield similar results. We compared brain lesion volumes in strokepatients deemed to have capacity to consent with those defined as incapacitated. METHODS: Data were obtained from 3 trials recruiting patients primarily with cortical stroke syndromes. Patients were recruited within 24 hours of onset and used MRI based selection or outcome criteria. Method of recruitment was recorded with stroke severity, age, and brain lesion volumes on Diffusion Weighted Imaging. RESULTS: Of the 56 subjects included, 38 (68%) were recruited by assent and 18 (32%) by consent. The assent group had a median lesion volume of 18.35 cubic centimetres (cc) (interquartile range [IQR] 8.27-110.31 cc), compared to 2.79 cc (IQR 1.31-12.33 cc) when patients consented (P=0.0004). Lesions were smaller than 5 cc in 7/38 (18%) in the assent group and 11/18 (61%) in the consent group (P=0.0024). There was good correlation between neurological deficit by NIH stroke scale score and lesion volume (r=0.584, P<0.0001). Logistic regression demonstrated NIHSS or lesion volume predicted capacity to consent. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with acute stroke who retain capacity to consent have significantly smaller infarct volumes than those incapable of consent, and these are frequently below the limits where measurement error significantly compromises valid use of volumetric end points. Only a small proportion of patients with capacity to consent would be eligible for, and contribute usefully to, most acute stroke trial protocols.
Authors: S E Kasner; A Del Giudice; S Rosenberg; M Sheen; J M Luciano; B L Cucchiara; S R Messé; L H Sansing; J M Baren Journal: Neurology Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Andrea Pace; Johan A F Koekkoek; Martin J van den Bent; Helen J Bulbeck; Jane Fleming; Robin Grant; Heidrun Golla; Roger Henriksson; Simon Kerrigan; Christine Marosi; Ingela Oberg; Stefan Oberndorfer; Kathy Oliver; H Roeline W Pasman; Emilie Le Rhun; Alasdair G Rooney; Roberta Rudà; Simone Veronese; Tobias Walbert; Michael Weller; Wolfgang Wick; Martin J B Taphoorn; Linda Dirven Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-07-16
Authors: Benjamin Hotter; Lena Ulm; Sarah Hoffmann; Mira Katan; Joan Montaner; Alejandro Bustamante; Andreas Meisel Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Götz Thomalla; Florent Boutitie; Jochen B Fiebach; Claus Z Simonsen; Norbert Nighoghossian; Salvador Pedraza; Robin Lemmens; Pascal Roy; Keith W Muir; Christoph Heesen; Martin Ebinger; Ian Ford; Bastian Cheng; Tae-Hee Cho; Josep Puig; Vincent Thijs; Matthias Endres; Jens Fiehler; Christian Gerloff Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-08-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kati Jegzentis; Tim Nowe; Peter Brunecker; Matthias Endres; Bernd Haferkorn; Christoph Ploner; Jens Steinbrink; Gerhard Jan Jungehulsing Journal: Trials Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 2.279