Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 132–138 | Cite as

Attitudes of Nurses Toward Disability and Treatment in Space-Occupying Middle Cerebral Artery Stroke

  • Hermann NeugebauerEmail author
  • Flora Malakou
  • Ingo Uttner
  • Melitta Köpke
  • Eric Jüttler
  • for the IGNITE Study Group (Initiative of German NeuroIntensive Trial Engagement)
Original Article
  • 148 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Attitudes toward the degree of acceptable disability and the importance of aphasia are critical in deciding on decompressive hemicraniectomy (DHC) in space-occupying middle cerebral artery stroke (SOS). The attitudes of nurses deserve strong attention, because of their close interaction with patients during acute stroke treatment.

Methods

This is a multicenter survey among 627 nurses from 132 hospitals in Germany. Questions address the acceptance of disability, importance of aphasia, and the preferred treatment in the hypothetical case of SOS.

Results

Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 1 and 2 were considered acceptable by the majority of all respondents (89.7%). A mRS of 3, 4, and 5 was considered acceptable by 60.0, 15.5, and 1.6%, respectively. DHC was indicated as the treatment of choice in 31.4%. Every third participant considered the presence of aphasia important for treatment decision (33.3%). Older respondents more often refrained from DHC, irrespective of the presence of aphasia (dominant hemisphere p = 0.001, non-dominant hemisphere p = 0.004). Differences regarding acceptable disability and treatment decision were dependent on age, sex, and having relatives with stroke.

Conclusion

Most German nurses indicate moderately severe disability after SOS not to be acceptable, without emphasizing the presence of aphasia. The results call for greater scientific efforts in order to find reliable predictors for outcome after SOS.

Keywords

Decompressive hemicraniectomy Malignant middle cerebral artery infarction Outcome Disability Survey 

Notes

Author Contribution

H.N. was involved in study design, analysis and interpretation of data, and drafting the manuscript. F.M. was involved in clinical data collection and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. I.U. was involved in interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. M.K. was involved in analysis and interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. E.J. was involved in study concept, design, supervision, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Source of Support

No funding.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Hermann Neugebauer received travel grants and speaker’s honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, and Daiichi Sankyo. Eric Jüttler received research grants from the German Research Foundation (DFG) and from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), and speaker’s honoraria and travel grants from Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Flora Malakou, Melitta Köpke, and Ingo Uttner do not report any disclosures. The study was investigator driven and not industry sponsored.

Ethical Approval

The Ethics Committee of the Charite - University Hospital Berlin, Germany (EA4/127/10), approved the survey.

References

  1. 1.
    Hacke W, Schwab S, Horn M, Spranger M, De Georgia M, von Kummer R. ‘Malignant’ middle cerebral artery territory infarction: clinical course and prognostic signs. Arch Neurol. 1996;53:309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hofmeijer J, Kapelle LJ, Algra A, Amelink GJ, van Gijn J, van der Worp HB, et al. Surgical decompression for space-occupying cerebral infarction (the haemicraniectomy after middle cerebral artery infarction with life-threatening oedema trial (HAMLET]): a multicentre, open, randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2009;8:326–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jüttler E, Schwab S, Schmiedek P, Unterberg A, Hennerici M, Woitzik J, et al. Decompressive surgery for the treatment of malignant infarction of the middle cerebral artery (DESTINY): a randomised, controlled trial. Stroke. 2007;38:2518–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vahedi K, Vicaut E, Mateo J, Kurtz A, Orabi M, Guichard JP, et al. Sequential-design, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial of early decompressive craniectomy in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction (DECIMAL Trial). Stroke. 2007;38:2506–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vahedi K, Hofmeijer J, Juettler E, Vicaut E, George B, Algra A, et al. Early decompressive surgery in malignant middle cerebral artery infarction: a pooled analysis of three randomised controlled trials. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:215–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Juttler E, Unterberg A, Woitzik J, Bösel J, Amiri H, Sakowitz OW, et al. haemicraniectomy in older patients with extensive middle-cerebral-artery stroke. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1091–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19:604–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Puetz V, Campos CR, Eliasziw M, Hill MD, Demchuk AM, Calgary Stroke Program. Assessing the benefits of haemicraniectomy: What is a favourable outcome? Lancet Neurol. 2007;6:580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Honeybul S, Ho KM, Gillett G. Outcome following decompressive haemicraniectomy for malignant cerebral infarction: ethical considerations. Stroke. 2015;46:2695–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honeybul S, Ho KM, Gillett G. Response to letter regarding article, “Outcome following decompressive haemicraniectomy for malignant cerebral infarction: ethical considerations”. Stroke. 2015;46:e246.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Woodworth G, Simard JM. Letter by Woodworth and Simard regarding article, “Outcome following decompressive haemicraniectomy for malignant cerebral infarction: ethical considerations”. Stroke. 2015;46:e245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Executive Committee; ESO Writing Committee. Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2008;25:457–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams HP Jr, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischaemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44:870–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Honeybul S, Ho KM, Blacker DW. ORACLE stroke study: opinion regarding acceptable outcome following decompressive haemicraniectomy for ischaemic stroke. Neurosurgery. 2016;79:231–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schwarz S, Kuhner C. Prognosis and quality of life after decompressive haemicraniectomy. A nationwide survey in Germany on the attitudes held by doctors and nurses. Nervenarzt. 2012;83:731–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Klein A, Kuehner C, Schwarz S. Attitudes in the general population towards hemi-craniectomy for middle cerebral artery (Mca) infarction. A population-based survey. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16:456–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nakagawa K, Bianchi MT, Nakagawa SS, Sorond FA. Aggressive care after a massive stroke in young patients: Is that what they want? Neurocrit Care. 2010;13:118–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Neugebauer H, Creutzfeldt CJ, Hemphill JC 3rd, Heuschmann PU, Juttler E. Destiny-S: attitudes of physicians toward disability and treatment in malignant Mca infarction. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Neugebauer H, Schnabl M, Lulé D, Heuschmann PU, Jüttler E, IGNITE Study Group (Initiative of German NeuroIntensive Trial Engagement). Attitudes of patients and relatives toward disability and treatment in malignant Mca infarction. Neurocrit Care. 2017;26:311–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Olivecrona M, Honeybul S. A study of the opinions of Swedish healthcare personnel regarding acceptable outcome following decompressive haemicraniectomy for ischaemic stroke. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018;160:95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rahme R, Zuccarello M, Kleindorfer D, Adeoye OM, Ringer AJ. Decompressive haemicraniectomy for malignant middle cerebral artery territory infarction: Is life worth living? J Neurosurg. 2012;117:749–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Middelaar T, Nederkoorn PJ, van der Worp HB, Stam J, Richard E. Quality of life after surgical decompression for space-occupying middle cerebral artery infarction: systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2015;10:170–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48:977–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilbert DT, Pinel EC, Wilson TD, Blumberg SJ, Wheatley TP. Immune neglect: a source of durability bias in affective forecasting. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;75:617–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kertéz Imre. Fatelessness. Szépirodalmi Kiadó, 1975. http://www.belltower.news/seite/buecher-zum-download. Accessed 06 Feb 2018.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and Neurocritical Care Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hermann Neugebauer
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Flora Malakou
    • 1
  • Ingo Uttner
    • 2
  • Melitta Köpke
    • 3
  • Eric Jüttler
    • 4
  • for the IGNITE Study Group (Initiative of German NeuroIntensive Trial Engagement)
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyRKU – University and Rehabilitation Hospitals UlmUlmGermany
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyUniversity of UlmUlmGermany
  3. 3.Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and BiometryUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of NeurologyOstalb-Klinikum AalenAalenGermany

Personalised recommendations