{"title":"Post-stroke cognition with the Oxford Cognitive Screen vs Montreal Cognitive Assessment: a multi-site randomized controlled study (OCS-CARE)","authors":"N. Demeyere, Shuo Sun, E. Milosevich, K. Vancleef","doi":"10.12688/AMRCOPENRES.12882.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cognitive impairment is common following stroke. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) was designed to assess focal post-stroke cognitive deficits in five domains. Here, we investigated whether results generated by the OCS vs the domain-general Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline impacted patient outcomes at 6 months follow-up. Methods: Patients <2 months post-stroke were randomized to receive either the OCS and corresponding information leaflet or standard care with the MoCA at baseline. After 6 months, patients received both the OCS and MoCA. The primary registered outcome measures were the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and change in stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS) at 6 months. The secondary outcome was change in cognitive performance from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The relationship between scores from the two cognitive screens at follow-up was also explored. Results: A total of 821 patients from 37 different hospital or rehabilitation sites (England, UK) were recruited to the OCS-CARE study, with 467 completing 6-month follow-up. Patient outcomes defined by overall SIS scores and changes in NIHSS did not differ between the OCS or MoCA groups. There were high accordance rates between the OCS and MoCA at 6 months, with severity of cognitive impairment reflected in both screening tools. Cognitive performance in both groups over the 6-month follow-up declined in 22% of patients. A larger proportion of OCS group patients demonstrated improvements in cognitive scores (49% vs 40% in MoCA). Conclusions: The type of cognitive screening test did not impact broad stroke outcome measures, and the two screening tools showed a high overall accordance. The results suggest that more of the domain-specific deficits in OCS recover subacutely, providing a more granular picture of cognitive recovery as well as decline. Registration: ISRCTN50857950; registered on 27/03/2014.","PeriodicalId":72183,"journal":{"name":"AMRC open research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMRC open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/AMRCOPENRES.12882.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23
Abstract
Background: Cognitive impairment is common following stroke. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS) was designed to assess focal post-stroke cognitive deficits in five domains. Here, we investigated whether results generated by the OCS vs the domain-general Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) at baseline impacted patient outcomes at 6 months follow-up. Methods: Patients <2 months post-stroke were randomized to receive either the OCS and corresponding information leaflet or standard care with the MoCA at baseline. After 6 months, patients received both the OCS and MoCA. The primary registered outcome measures were the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and change in stroke severity (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale; NIHSS) at 6 months. The secondary outcome was change in cognitive performance from baseline to 6-month follow-up. The relationship between scores from the two cognitive screens at follow-up was also explored. Results: A total of 821 patients from 37 different hospital or rehabilitation sites (England, UK) were recruited to the OCS-CARE study, with 467 completing 6-month follow-up. Patient outcomes defined by overall SIS scores and changes in NIHSS did not differ between the OCS or MoCA groups. There were high accordance rates between the OCS and MoCA at 6 months, with severity of cognitive impairment reflected in both screening tools. Cognitive performance in both groups over the 6-month follow-up declined in 22% of patients. A larger proportion of OCS group patients demonstrated improvements in cognitive scores (49% vs 40% in MoCA). Conclusions: The type of cognitive screening test did not impact broad stroke outcome measures, and the two screening tools showed a high overall accordance. The results suggest that more of the domain-specific deficits in OCS recover subacutely, providing a more granular picture of cognitive recovery as well as decline. Registration: ISRCTN50857950; registered on 27/03/2014.
背景:脑卒中后认知障碍很常见。牛津认知筛查(OCS)旨在评估中风后五个领域的局灶性认知缺陷。在这里,我们调查了OCS和领域通用蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)在基线时产生的结果是否影响患者6个月随访的结果。方法:卒中后<2个月的患者随机接受OCS和相应的信息单张,或基线时MoCA的标准治疗。6个月后,患者同时接受OCS和MoCA。主要登记的结局指标是卒中影响量表(SIS)和卒中严重程度的变化(美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表;NIHSS) 6个月。次要结果是从基线到6个月随访期间认知表现的变化。在随访中还探讨了两种认知屏幕得分之间的关系。结果:共有来自37家不同医院或康复中心(英格兰、英国)的821名患者被招募到OCS-CARE研究中,其中467名完成了6个月的随访。由总体SIS评分和NIHSS变化定义的患者结局在OCS组和MoCA组之间没有差异。6个月时,OCS和MoCA的符合率很高,两种筛查工具都反映了认知障碍的严重程度。在6个月的随访中,两组患者的认知能力下降了22%。更大比例的OCS组患者表现出认知评分的改善(49% vs MoCA组的40%)。结论:认知筛查测试的类型不影响广泛的脑卒中结局测量,两种筛查工具显示出高度的总体一致性。研究结果表明,OCS中更多的领域特异性缺陷会亚急性恢复,从而提供了认知恢复和衰退的更详细的图景。注册:ISRCTN50857950;注册日期:27/03/2014