Background:Most strokes occur in the context of other medical diagnoses. Currently, stroke rehabilitation evidence reviews have not synthesized or presented evidence with a focus on comorbidities and correspondingly may not align with current patient population. The purpose of this review was to determine the extent and nature of randomized controlled trial stroke rehabilitation evidence that included patients with multimorbidity. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted. Electronic databases were searched using a combination of terms related to "stroke" and "rehabilitation. " Selection criteria captured inpatient rehabilitation studies. Methods were modified to account for the amount of literature, classified by study design, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were abstracted. Results: The database search yielded 10771 unique articles. Screening resulted in 428 included RCTs. Three studies explicitly included patients with a comorbid condition. Fifteen percent of articles did not specify additional conditions that were excluded. Impaired cognition was the most commonly excluded condition. Approximately 37% of articles excluded patients who had experienced a previous stroke. Twenty-four percent excluded patients one or more Charlson Index condition, and 83% excluded patients with at least one other medical condition. Conclusions: This review represents a first attempt to map literature on stroke rehabilitation related to co/multimorbidity and identify gaps in existing research. Existing evidence on stroke rehabilitation often excluded individuals with comorbidities. This is problematic as the evidence that is used to generate clinical guidelines may not match the patient typically seen in practice. The use of alternate research methods are therefore needed for studying the care of individuals with stroke and multimorbidity.

Although intravenous thrombolysis increases the probability of a good functional outcome in carefully selected patients with acute ischemic stroke, a substantial proportion of patients who receive thrombolysis do not have a good outcome. Several recent trials of mechanical thrombectomy appear to indicate that this treatment may be superior to thrombolysis. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of new-generation mechanical thrombectomy devices with intravenous thrombolysis (if eligible) compared with intravenous thrombolysis (if eligible) in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by a proximal intracranial occlusion. We systematically searched seven databases for randomized controlled trials published between January 2005 and March 2015 comparing stent retrievers or thromboaspiration devices with best medical therapy (with or without intravenous thrombolysis) in adults with acute ischemic stroke. We assessed risk of bias and overall quality of the included trials. We combined the data using a fixed or random effects meta-analysis, where appropriate. We identified 1579 studies; of these, we evaluated 122 full-text papers and included five randomized control trials (n=1287). Compared with patients treated medically, patients who received mechanical thrombectomy were more likely to be functionally independent as measured by a modified Rankin score of 0-2 (odds ratio, 2.39; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-3.04; I2=0%). This finding was robust to subgroup analysis. Mortality and symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage were not significantly different between the two groups. Mechanical thrombectomy significantly improves functional independence in appropriately selected patients with acute ischemic stroke.

No abstract