Inpatient rehabilitation outcomes after primary severe haemorrhagic stroke: a retrospective study comparing surgical versus non-surgical management

• Main Authors: Ong, Poo Lee, Seah, Justin Desheng, Chua, Karen Sui Geok
• Other Authors: Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine (LKCMedicine)
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: 2023
• Subjects: Science::Medicine; Haemorrhagic Stroke; Decompressive Craniectomy
• Online Access: https://hdl.handle.net/10356/171622
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

Background: Haemorrhagic stroke, accounting for 10–20% of all strokes, often requires decompressive surgery as a life-saving measure for cases with massive oedema and raised intracranial pressure. This study was conducted to compare the demographics, characteristics and rehabilitation profiles of patients with severe haemorrhagic stroke who were managed surgically versus those who were managed non-surgically. Methods: A single-centre retrospective study of electronic medical records was conducted over a 3-year period from 1 January 2018 to 31 December 2020. The inclusion criteria were first haemorrhagic stroke, age of >18 years and an admission Functional Independence Measure (FIM™) score of 18–40 upon admission to the rehabilitation centre. The primary outcome measure was discharge FIM™. Secondary outcome measures included modified Rankin Scale (mRS), rehabilitation length of stay (RLOS) and complication rates. Results: A total of 107 patients’ records were analysed; 45 (42.1%) received surgical intervention and 62 (57.9%) patients underwent non-surgical management. Surgically managed patients were significantly younger than non-surgical patients, with a mean age of [surgical 53.1 (SD 12) vs. non-surgical 61.6 (SD 12.3), p = 0.001]. Admission FIM was significantly lower in the surgical vs. non-surgical group [23.7 (SD6.7) vs. 26.71 (SD 7.4), p = 0.031). However, discharge FIM was similar between both groups [surgical 53.91 (SD23.0) vs. non-surgical 57.0 (SD23.6), p = 0.625). Similarly, FIM gain (surgical 30.1 (SD 21.1) vs. non-surgical 30.3 (SD 21.1), p = 0.094) and RLOS [surgical 56.2 days (SD 21.5) vs. non-surgical 52.0 days (SD 23.4), p = 0.134) were not significantly different between groups. The majority of patients were discharged home (surgical 73.3% vs. non-surgical 74.2%, p = 0.920) despite a high level of dependency. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients with surgically managed haemorrhagic stroke, while older and more dependent on admission to rehabilitation, achieved comparable FIM gains, discharge FIM and discharge home rates after ~8 weeks of rehabilitation. This highlights the importance of rehabilitation, especially for surgically managed haemorrhagic stroke patients.