Lalit Kalra1, Saddif Irshad2, John Hodsoll3, Matthew Simpson4, Martin Gulliford5, David Smithard6, Anita Patel7, Irene Rebollo-Mesa8. 1. Department of Basic and Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: lalit.kalra@kcl.ac.uk. 2. Department of Basic and Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. 3. King's Clinical Trials Unit, Biostatistics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK; UK and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK. 4. UK Joint Clinical Trials Office, The King's Health Partners, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK. 5. Division of Health and Social Care Research, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK. 6. University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. 7. Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK. 8. King's Clinical Trials Unit, Biostatistics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke pneumonia is associated with increased mortality and poor functional outcomes. This study assessed the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing pneumonia in patients with dysphagia after acute stroke. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, cluster-randomised, open-label controlled trial with masked endpoint assessment of patients older than 18 years with dysphagia after new stroke recruited from 48 stroke units in the UK, accredited and included in the UK National Stroke Audit. We excluded patients with contraindications to antibiotics, pre-existing dysphagia, or known infections, or who were not expected to survive beyond 14 days. We randomly assigned the units (1:1) by computer to give either prophylactic antibiotics for 7 days plus standard stroke unit care or standard stroke unit care only to patients clustered in the units within 48 h of stroke onset. We did the randomisation with minimisation to stratify for number of admissions and access to specialist care. Patient and staff who did the assessments and analyses were masked to stroke unit allocation. The primary outcome was post-stroke pneumonia in the first 14 days, assessed with both a criteria-based, hierarchical algorithm and by physician diagnosis in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also analysed by intention to treat. This trial is closed to new participants and is registered with isrctn.com, number ISRCTN37118456. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2008, and May 17, 2014, we randomly assigned 48 stroke units (and 1224 patients clustered within the units) to the two treatment groups: 24 to antibiotics and 24 to standard care alone (control). 11 units and seven patients withdrew after randomisation before 14 days, leaving 1217 patients in 37 units for the intention-to-treat analysis (615 patients in the antibiotics group, 602 in control). Prophylactic antibiotics did not affect the incidence of algorithm-defined post-stroke pneumonia (71 [13%] of 564 patients in antibiotics group vs 52 [10%] of 524 in control group; marginal adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·21 [95% CI 0·71-2·08], p=0·489, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0·06 [95% CI 0·02-0·17]. Algorithm-defined post-stroke pneumonia could not be established in 129 (10%) patients because of missing data. Additionally, we noted no differences in physician-diagnosed post-stroke pneumonia between groups (101 [16%] of 615 patients vs 91 [15%] of 602, adjusted OR 1·01 [95% CI 0·61-1·68], p=0·957, ICC 0·08 [95% CI 0·03-0·21]). The most common adverse events were infections unrelated to post-stroke pneumonia (mainly urinary tract infections), which were less frequent in the antibiotics group (22 [4%] of 615 vs 45 [7%] of 602; OR 0·55 [0·32-0·92], p=0·02). Diarrhoea positive for Clostridium difficile occurred in two patients (<1%) in the antibiotics group and four (<1%) in the control group, and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation occurred in 11 patients (2%) in the antibiotics group and 14 (2%) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic prophylaxis cannot be recommended for prevention of post-stroke pneumonia in patients with dysphagia after stroke managed in stroke units. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.
BACKGROUND: Post-stroke pneumonia is associated with increased mortality and poor functional outcomes. This study assessed the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for reducing pneumonia in patients with dysphagia after acute stroke. METHODS: We did a prospective, multicentre, cluster-randomised, open-label controlled trial with masked endpoint assessment of patients older than 18 years with dysphagia after new stroke recruited from 48 stroke units in the UK, accredited and included in the UK National Stroke Audit. We excluded patients with contraindications to antibiotics, pre-existing dysphagia, or known infections, or who were not expected to survive beyond 14 days. We randomly assigned the units (1:1) by computer to give either prophylactic antibiotics for 7 days plus standard stroke unit care or standard stroke unit care only to patients clustered in the units within 48 h of stroke onset. We did the randomisation with minimisation to stratify for number of admissions and access to specialist care. Patient and staff who did the assessments and analyses were masked to stroke unit allocation. The primary outcome was post-stroke pneumonia in the first 14 days, assessed with both a criteria-based, hierarchical algorithm and by physician diagnosis in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also analysed by intention to treat. This trial is closed to new participants and is registered with isrctn.com, number ISRCTN37118456. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2008, and May 17, 2014, we randomly assigned 48 stroke units (and 1224 patients clustered within the units) to the two treatment groups: 24 to antibiotics and 24 to standard care alone (control). 11 units and seven patients withdrew after randomisation before 14 days, leaving 1217 patients in 37 units for the intention-to-treat analysis (615 patients in the antibiotics group, 602 in control). Prophylactic antibiotics did not affect the incidence of algorithm-defined post-stroke pneumonia (71 [13%] of 564 patients in antibiotics group vs 52 [10%] of 524 in control group; marginal adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·21 [95% CI 0·71-2·08], p=0·489, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0·06 [95% CI 0·02-0·17]. Algorithm-defined post-stroke pneumonia could not be established in 129 (10%) patients because of missing data. Additionally, we noted no differences in physician-diagnosed post-stroke pneumonia between groups (101 [16%] of 615 patients vs 91 [15%] of 602, adjusted OR 1·01 [95% CI 0·61-1·68], p=0·957, ICC 0·08 [95% CI 0·03-0·21]). The most common adverse events were infections unrelated to post-stroke pneumonia (mainly urinary tract infections), which were less frequent in the antibiotics group (22 [4%] of 615 vs 45 [7%] of 602; OR 0·55 [0·32-0·92], p=0·02). Diarrhoea positive for Clostridium difficile occurred in two patients (<1%) in the antibiotics group and four (<1%) in the control group, and meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonisation occurred in 11 patients (2%) in the antibiotics group and 14 (2%) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic prophylaxis cannot be recommended for prevention of post-stroke pneumonia in patients with dysphagia after stroke managed in stroke units. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.
Authors: Wei-Na Jin; Andrew F Ducruet; Qiang Liu; Samuel Xiang-Yu Shi; Michael Waters; Ming Zou; Kevin N Sheth; Rayna Gonzales; Fu-Dong Shi Journal: FASEB J Date: 2018-01-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Sarah Hoffmann; Hendrik Harms; Lena Ulm; Darius G Nabavi; Bruno-Marcel Mackert; Ingo Schmehl; Gerhard J Jungehulsing; Joan Montaner; Alejandro Bustamante; Marcella Hermans; Frank Hamilton; Jos Göhler; Uwe Malzahn; Carolin Malsch; Peter U Heuschmann; Christian Meisel; Andreas Meisel Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Annastazia E Learoyd; Lisa Woodhouse; Laurence Shaw; Nikola Sprigg; Daniel Bereczki; Eivind Berge; Valeria Caso; Hanne Christensen; Ronan Collins; Anna Czlonkowska; Anwar El Etribi; Tracy D Farr; John Gommans; Ann-Charlotte Laska; George Ntaios; Serefnur Ozturk; Stuart J Pocock; Kameshwar Prasad; Joanna M Wardlaw; Kevin C Fone; Philip M Bath; Rebecca C Trueman Journal: Transl Stroke Res Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 6.829
Authors: Andrea Morotti; Sandro Marini; Michael J Jessel; Kristin Schwab; Christina Kourkoulis; Alison M Ayres; M Edip Gurol; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg; Christopher D Anderson; Joshua N Goldstein; Jonathan Rosand Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Marcel A Kopp; Ralf Watzlawick; Peter Martus; Vieri Failli; Felix W Finkenstaedt; Yuying Chen; Michael J DeVivo; Ulrich Dirnagl; Jan M Schwab Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-01-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Dragana Stanley; Linda J Mason; Kate E Mackin; Yogitha N Srikhanta; Dena Lyras; Monica D Prakash; Kulmira Nurgali; Andres Venegas; Michael D Hill; Robert J Moore; Connie H Y Wong Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-10-03 Impact factor: 53.440