IntroductionPatients with acute stroke are at high risk for infection. These infections are associated with unfavourable outcome after stroke. A prediction rule can identify the patients at the highest risk for strategies to prevent infection. We aim to develop a prediction rule for post-stroke pneumonia and other infections in patients with acute stroke.Patients and methodsWe used data from the Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study, a multicentre randomised trial comparing preventive ceftriaxone vs. standard stroke care in patients with acute stroke. Possible predictors for post-stroke pneumonia or infection were selected from the literature. Backward elimination logistic regression analysis was used to construct prediction rules for pneumonia or infection. Internal validation was performed and a risk chart was constructed. We adjusted for preventive antibiotic use.ResultsPneumonia was diagnosed in 159 of the 2538 included patients, and infection in 348. Pneumonia was predicted by higher age, male sex, pre-stroke disability, medical history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, more severe stroke, dysphagia and intracerebral haemorrhage (rather than ischaemic stroke). Infections were predicted by higher age, male sex, history of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, more severe stroke, dysphagia, use of bladder catheter, preventive antibiotic use and intracerebral haemorrhage. With the prediction rule developed, risks for pneumonia ranged from 0.4% to 56.2% and from 1.8% to 88.0% for infection. Discrimination of the score was good (C-statistic, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.81–0.87 and 0.82; 95% CI: 0.79–0.84 for pneumonia and infection).ConclusionsThe Preventive Antibiotics in Stroke Study pneumonia and infection rule identify patients at the highest risk for post-stroke pneumonia or infection and may be used for future studies and novel therapies, after confirmation in an external population.
Introduction Infection after stroke is associated with unfavorable outcome. Randomized controlled studies did not show benefit of preventive antibiotics in stroke but lacked power for subgroup analyses. Aim of this study is to assess whether preventive antibiotic therapy after stroke improves functional outcome for specific patient groups in an individual patient data meta-analysis. Patients and methods We searched MEDLINE (1946–7 May 2021), Embase (1947–7 May 2021), CENTRAL (17th September 2021), trial registries, cross-checked references and contacted researchers for randomized controlled trials of preventive antibiotic therapy versus placebo or standard care in ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke patients. Meta-analysis was performed by a one-step and two-step approach. Primary outcome was functional outcome adjusted for age and stroke severity. Secondary outcomes were infections and mortality. Results 4197 patients from nine trials were included. Preventive antibiotic therapy was not associated with a shift in functional outcome (mRS) at 3 months (OR1.13, 95%CI 0.98–1.31) or unfavorable functional outcome (mRS 3–6) (OR0.85, 95%CI 0.60–1.19). Preventive antibiotics did not improve functional outcome in pre-defined subgroups (age, stroke severity, timing and type of antibiotic therapy, pneumonia prediction scores, dysphagia, type of stroke, and type of trial). Preventive antibiotics reduced infections (276/2066 (13.4%) in the preventive antibiotic group vs. 417/2059 (20.3%) in the control group, OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.51–0.71, p < 0.001), but not pneumonia (191/2066 (9.2%) in the preventive antibiotic group vs. 205/2061 (9.9%) in the control group (OR 0.92 (0.75–1.14), p = 0.450). Discussion and conclusion Preventive antibiotic therapy did not benefit any subgroup of patients with acute stroke and currently cannot be recommended.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.