OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS there has been a quiet revolution in care of patients with stroke, with the introduction of effective interventions to minimise the impact of stroke after its onset. Although some potential secondary prevention strategies were used sporadically before the mid-1970s, none had been proven to be effective with what we now accept as Level 1 evidence. However, since then, a series of evidence-based strategies have been introduced — antiplatelet agents (initially aspirin in 1978,1 and most recently clopidogrel2), rotid endarte ectomy in 1991,3 w rfarin (for patients with atrial fibrillation) in 1993,4 and perindopril in 2001.5 In spite of the tenuous epidemiological association between cholesterol levels and ischaemic stroke, statins (eg, simvastatin) may also be effective in secondary prevention.6 Interventions for acute stroke have been more problematic. Despite the exciting advances in treatment of ischaemic heart disease, developments in stroke treatment were slow. Stroke care units were introduced in the mid-1970s — the first in Australia at the Austin Hospital, Melbourne, in 1978.7 However, not until 1993 did it become clear that management in a stroke care unit reduced morbidity and mortality compared with general ward management8 and, more recently, that patients treated in physically discrete units have better outcomes than those who are dispersed in different locations and rely on mobile stroke teams.9 Thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) (given within three hours of stroke onset) was introduced in 199510 and with aspirin (given within 48 hours of onset) in 1997.11 Neuroprotection with agents such as glutamate antagonists, among others, is still being evaluated. In this issue of the Journal, four articles reflect on the enactment of these advances in Australia.12-15 Duffy and colleagues (page 318) document the secondary prevention strategies administered in Australian hospitals and show their relatively poor uptake into clinical practice despite Level 1 evidence of their effectiveness.12 This highlights the difficulty of bridging the evidence–practice gap.16 The other three articles focus on the “sharp end” of stroke intervention — a report of the first Australian experience of thrombolysis with tPA (Szoeke et al; page 324),13 another on the reasons for delay to admission for acute stroke management (geographical location of the patient at stroke onset was the only independent predictor) (Broadley and Thompson; page 329),14 and finally the outcomes of combined acute and rehabilitation care in a stroke unit — probably the ideal model of care (Ang et al; page 333).15 It is salutary to compare the effects on death and disability of the three proven strategies for stroke intervention — management in a stroke care unit, and aspirin and tPA administration (Box). Using broad assumptions about the current uptake of these strategies by Australian physicians, the absolute benefits of stroke care unit management clearly outweigh those of aspirin and tPA administration. If use of all three strategies was maximised to about 80% for stroke care unit management, 80% for aspirin administration within 48 hours of stroke onset, and 10% for tPA administration within three hours, the difference in potential absolute benefits would be even more marked —the benefits of stroke unit management would be more than double those of either tPA or aspirin. Perhaps even more importantly, when a stroke care unit is established the staff skill base increases, and protocols are put in place, increasing the likelihood of evidence-based practice for both acute intervention and secondary prevention strategies. These benefits highlight the need for the timely introduction of stroke care units in Australia. What then is being done? Progress has been lamentably slow. While there have been stroke care units in most tertiary hospitals in Victoria for the past 10–15 years, their introduction in other States has been tardy. However, this is changing. The New South Wales Minister for Health has Strategies to improve outcomes after acute stroke
[1]
A randomized trial of aspirin and sulfinpyrazone in threatened stroke.
,
1978,
The New England journal of medicine.
[2]
G. Donnan,et al.
Patterns of stroke. An analysis of the first 700 consecutive admissions to the Austin Hospital Stroke Unit.
,
1983,
Australian and New Zealand journal of medicine.
[3]
P. Langhorne,et al.
Do stroke units save lives?
,
1993,
The Lancet.
[4]
Leandro Provinciali,et al.
Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke
,
1993
.
[5]
Joseph P. Broderick,et al.
Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group.
,
1995
.
[6]
David Schultz,et al.
A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE)
,
1996,
The Lancet.
[7]
Peter Sandercock,et al.
The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19 435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke
,
1997,
The Lancet.
[8]
Martin Knapp,et al.
Alternative strategies for stroke care: a prospective randomised controlled trial
,
2000,
The Lancet.
[9]
Y. Ang,et al.
Patient outcomes and length of stay in a stroke unit offering both acute and rehabilitation services
,
2003,
The Medical journal of Australia.
[10]
K. Butcher,et al.
Acute stroke thrombolysis with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator in an Australian tertiary hospital
,
2003,
The Medical journal of Australia.
[11]
G. Donnan,et al.
Evidence‐based care and outcomes of acute stroke managed in hospital specialty units
,
2003,
The Medical journal of Australia.
[12]
S. Broadley,et al.
Time to hospital admission for acute stroke: an observational study
,
2003,
The Medical journal of Australia.