Health care resouce use and stroke outcome

Article English OPEN
Asplund, K. ; Ashburner, S. ; Cargill, K. ; Hux, M. ; Lees, K. ; Drummond, M. (2003)

Background and Purpose: Outcome in patients hospitalized for acute stroke varies considerably between populations. Within the framework of the GAIN International trial, a large multicenter trial of a neuroprotective agent (gavestinel, glycine antagonist), stroke outcome in relation to health care resource use has been compared in a large number of countries, allowing for differences in case mix. Methods: This substudy includes 1,422 patients in 19 countries grouped into 10 regions. Data on prognostic variables on admission to hospital, resource use, and outcome were analyzed by regression models. Results: All results were adjusted for differences in prognostic factors on admission (NIH Stroke Scale, age, comorbidity). There were threefold variations in the average number of days in hospital/institutional care (from 20 to 60 days). The proportion of patients who met with professional rehabilitation staff also varied greatly. Three-month case fatality ranged from 11% to 28%, and mean Barthel ADL score at three months varied between 64 and 73. There was no relationship between health care resource use and outcome in terms of survival and ADL function at three months. The proportion of patients living at home at three months did not show any relationship to ADL function across countries. Conclusions: There are wide variations in health care resource use between countries, unexplained by differences in case mix. Across countries, there is no obvious relationship between resource use and clinical outcome after stroke. Differences in health care traditions (treatment pathways) and social We thank the coinvestigators and research staff at the participating centers for their support. Glaxo Wellcome sponsored the GAIN International trial, supported the present analyses and reviewed the final draft of the article.
  • References (26)
    26 references, page 1 of 3

    1. Brainin M, Bornstein N, Boysen G, Demarin V. Acute neurological stroke care in Europe: results of the European Stroke Care Inventory. Eur J Neurol. 2000;7:5-10.

    2. Britton M, Andersson A. Home rehabilitation after stroke. Reviewing the scientific evidence on effects and costs. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:842-848.

    3. Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, Duchesne I, for the Stroke Economic Analysis Group. Management patterns and costs of acute ischemic stroke: an international study. Stroke. 2000;31:582-590.

    4. Caro JJ, Huybrechts KF, Kelley HE. Predicting treatment costs after acute ischemic stroke on the basis of patient characteristics at presentation and early dysfunction. Stroke. 2001;32:100-106.

    5. Drummond MF, Ward GH. The financial burden of stroke and the economic evaluation of treatment alternatives. In: Rose FC, ed. Stroke: Epidemiological, therapeutic and socio-economic aspects. London: Royal College of Medicine Services International Congress and Symposium Series, vol. 99. 1986.

    6. Ebrahim S, Holloway RG, Benesch CG. Systematic review of cost-effectiveness research of stroke evaluation and treatment. Stroke. 1999;30:2759-2768.

    7. Evers SM, Ament AJ, Blaauw G. Economic evaluation in stroke research: Aa systematic review. Stroke. 2000;31:1046-1053.

    8. Gorelick PB. Neuroprotection in acute ischaemic stroke: A tale of for whom the bell tolls? Lancet. 2000;355:1925-1926.

    9. Grieve R, Porsdal V, Hutton J, Wolfe C. A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of stroke care provided in London and Copenhagen. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:684-695.

    10. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Pedersen PM, et al. Epidemiology of stroke-related disability. Patient characteristics and primary outcomes of patients with stroke from Copenhagen Stroke Study. Clin Geriatr Med. 1999;15:785-799.

  • Metrics
    No metrics available
Share - Bookmark