Department of Basic and Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Department of Basic and Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Lancet. 2015 Nov 7;386(10006):1835-44. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00126-9. Epub 2015 Sep 3.
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.
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.
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.
Antibiotic prophylaxis cannot be recommended for prevention of post-stroke pneumonia in patients with dysphagia after stroke managed in stroke units.
UK National Institute for Health Research.
卒中后肺炎与死亡率增加和功能预后不良有关。本研究评估了抗生素预防对急性卒中后伴吞咽困难患者肺炎的有效性。
我们在英国的 48 个卒中单元进行了一项前瞻性、多中心、集群随机、开放性对照试验,对新发生卒中后伴吞咽困难的年龄大于 18 岁的患者进行终点评估,该试验由英国国家卒中审计纳入并认可。我们排除了对抗生素禁忌、预先存在的吞咽困难或已知感染或预计生存时间不超过 14 天的患者。我们在卒中发作后 48 小时内,将单位(1:1)通过计算机随机分配接受 7 天的预防性抗生素治疗加标准卒中单元护理,或仅接受标准卒中单元护理。我们通过最小化分层,对纳入的单位进行随机分组,以分层为入院次数和获得专科护理的机会。对评估和分析的患者和工作人员进行了卒中单元分配的盲法处理。主要结局是在第 14 天内发生卒中后肺炎,通过基于标准的分层算法和意向治疗人群中的医生诊断来评估。安全性也按意向治疗进行分析。该试验已对新参与者关闭,并在 isrctn.com 上注册,编号为 ISRCTN37118456。
在 2008 年 4 月 21 日至 2014 年 5 月 17 日期间,我们将 48 个卒中单元(和单位内 1224 名患者)随机分配至两组治疗:24 个接受抗生素治疗,24 个接受标准护理(对照组)。在随机分组前 14 天内,11 个单位和 7 名患者撤回,37 个单位的 1217 名患者进行意向治疗分析(抗生素组 615 名患者,对照组 602 名患者)。预防性抗生素不能影响算法定义的卒中后肺炎的发生率(抗生素组 564 例患者中 71 例[13%],对照组 524 例患者中 52 例[10%];边缘调整后的优势比[OR] 1.21 [95%CI 0.71-2.08],p=0.489,组内相关系数[ICC] 0.06 [95%CI 0.02-0.17])。由于数据缺失,129 名(10%)患者无法确定算法定义的卒中后肺炎。此外,我们注意到两组之间的医生诊断的卒中后肺炎无差异(抗生素组 615 例患者中 101 例[16%],对照组 602 例患者中 91 例[15%],调整后的 OR 1.01 [95%CI 0.61-1.68],p=0.957,ICC 0.08 [95%CI 0.03-0.21])。最常见的不良事件是与卒中后肺炎无关的感染(主要是尿路感染),抗生素组的发生率较低(抗生素组 615 例患者中 22 例[4%],对照组 602 例患者中 45 例[7%];OR 0.55 [0.32-0.92],p=0.02)。抗生素组有 2 例(<1%)患者出现艰难梭菌阳性腹泻,对照组有 4 例(<1%)患者出现耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌定植,抗生素组有 11 例(2%)患者出现耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌定植,对照组有 14 例(2%)患者出现耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌定植。
对于在卒中单元管理的卒中后伴吞咽困难的患者,抗生素预防不能推荐用于预防卒中后肺炎。
英国国家卫生研究院。