Functional Outcomes and Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage After Endovascular Treatment in Acute Vertebrobasilar Artery Occlusions: External Validation of Prediction Models

Yingjie Xu, Miaomiao Hu, Pan Zhang, LuLu Xiao, Yanan Lu, Dezhi Liu, Yongkun Li, A. Alexandre, A. Pedicelli, A. Broccolini, L. Scarcia, Hao Chen, Wen Sun
{"title":"Functional Outcomes and Symptomatic Intracranial Hemorrhage After Endovascular Treatment in Acute Vertebrobasilar Artery Occlusions: External Validation of Prediction Models","authors":"Yingjie Xu, Miaomiao Hu, Pan Zhang, LuLu Xiao, Yanan Lu, Dezhi Liu, Yongkun Li, A. Alexandre, A. Pedicelli, A. Broccolini, L. Scarcia, Hao Chen, Wen Sun","doi":"10.1161/svin.123.001284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (VBAO) is a severe type of stroke. Multiple prediction models for outcome and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular treatment have been developed to improve patient management, but few are based on VBAO. This study aimed to provide an overview of published models to predict functional outcome and sICH as well as to validate their ability in patients with acute VBAO treated with endovascular treatment.\n \n \n \n We performed a systematic search to identify models either developed or validated to predict functional outcomes or sICH after endovascular treatment. Models were externally validated in the Posterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke Registry (PERSIST) study (n = 2422). Outcome measures included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days and sICH. Model performance was evaluated with discrimination (c‐statistic) and calibration (slope and intercept).\n \n \n \n A total of 65 models were included in overview. The most frequently used predictors were baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (n = 57), age (n = 45), and glucose (n = 32). In the external validation cohort, 777 of 2353 patients (33.0%) achieved mRS score 0–2 at 90 days, 1061 of 2353 patients (45.1%) patients achieved mRS score 0–3 at 90 days, and sICH occurred in 170 of 2422 patients (7.0%). Finally, 27 models were included in external validation. For functional outcome models focusing on mRS score 0–2/3–6, discrimination ranged from 0.63 to 0.66 and best calibrated model was SC (Stroke Checkerboard) (intercept, −0.13 [95% CI, −0.27 to 0.01]; slope, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67–1.17]). For functional outcome models focusing on mRS score 0–3/4–6, discrimination ranged from 0.64 to 0.74 and best calibrated model was modified Houston Intra‐Arterial Therapy 2 (mHIAT2) (intercept, −0.12 [95% CI, −0.31 to 0.07]; slope, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65–1.04]). For sICH models, discrimination ranged from 0.53 to 0.83 and best calibrated model was Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, and glucose (TAG) (intercept, 0.13 [95% CI, −0.25 to 0.51]; slope, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.63–1.23]).\n \n \n \n The currently published models are inadequate for predicting functional outcomes and sICH in patients with acute VBAO undergoing endovascular treatment and, therefore, there is a need for more effective models specifically developed for VBAO conditions.\n","PeriodicalId":21977,"journal":{"name":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","volume":"30 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/svin.123.001284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Vertebrobasilar artery occlusion (VBAO) is a severe type of stroke. Multiple prediction models for outcome and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) of patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with endovascular treatment have been developed to improve patient management, but few are based on VBAO. This study aimed to provide an overview of published models to predict functional outcome and sICH as well as to validate their ability in patients with acute VBAO treated with endovascular treatment. We performed a systematic search to identify models either developed or validated to predict functional outcomes or sICH after endovascular treatment. Models were externally validated in the Posterior Circulation Ischemic Stroke Registry (PERSIST) study (n = 2422). Outcome measures included the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 90 days and sICH. Model performance was evaluated with discrimination (c‐statistic) and calibration (slope and intercept). A total of 65 models were included in overview. The most frequently used predictors were baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (n = 57), age (n = 45), and glucose (n = 32). In the external validation cohort, 777 of 2353 patients (33.0%) achieved mRS score 0–2 at 90 days, 1061 of 2353 patients (45.1%) patients achieved mRS score 0–3 at 90 days, and sICH occurred in 170 of 2422 patients (7.0%). Finally, 27 models were included in external validation. For functional outcome models focusing on mRS score 0–2/3–6, discrimination ranged from 0.63 to 0.66 and best calibrated model was SC (Stroke Checkerboard) (intercept, −0.13 [95% CI, −0.27 to 0.01]; slope, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.67–1.17]). For functional outcome models focusing on mRS score 0–3/4–6, discrimination ranged from 0.64 to 0.74 and best calibrated model was modified Houston Intra‐Arterial Therapy 2 (mHIAT2) (intercept, −0.12 [95% CI, −0.31 to 0.07]; slope, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65–1.04]). For sICH models, discrimination ranged from 0.53 to 0.83 and best calibrated model was Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score, Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score, and glucose (TAG) (intercept, 0.13 [95% CI, −0.25 to 0.51]; slope, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.63–1.23]). The currently published models are inadequate for predicting functional outcomes and sICH in patients with acute VBAO undergoing endovascular treatment and, therefore, there is a need for more effective models specifically developed for VBAO conditions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
急性椎基底动脉闭塞症血管内治疗后的功能预后和症状性颅内出血:预测模型的外部验证
椎基底动脉闭塞(VBAO)是一种严重的卒中类型。目前已开发出多种预测急性缺血性卒中血管内治疗患者预后和症状性颅内出血(sICH)的模型,以改善患者管理,但很少有模型是基于 VBAO 的。本研究旨在概述已发表的预测功能预后和 sICH 的模型,并验证这些模型对接受血管内治疗的急性 VBAO 患者的预测能力。 我们进行了系统性检索,以确定已开发或已验证的预测血管内治疗后功能预后或 sICH 的模型。后循环缺血性卒中登记(PERSIST)研究(n = 2422)对模型进行了外部验证。结果测量包括 90 天后的改良 Rankin 量表 (mRS) 评分和 sICH。模型性能通过判别(c 统计量)和校准(斜率和截距)进行评估。 共有 65 个模型被纳入概述。最常用的预测因子是美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表基线评分(57 分)、年龄(45 分)和血糖(32 分)。在外部验证队列中,2353 例患者中有 777 例(33.0%)在 90 天时达到了 mRS 0-2 分,2353 例患者中有 1061 例(45.1%)在 90 天时达到了 mRS 0-3 分,2422 例患者中有 170 例(7.0%)发生了 sICH。最后,27 个模型被纳入外部验证。对于以 mRS 评分 0-2/3-6 为重点的功能结果模型,区分度在 0.63 至 0.66 之间,最佳校准模型为 SC(Stroke Checkerboard)(截距,-0.13 [95% CI,-0.27 至 0.01];斜率,0.92 [95% CI,0.67-1.17])。对于以 mRS 评分 0-3/4-6 为重点的功能结果模型,区分度在 0.64 至 0.74 之间,最佳校准模型为修正的休斯顿动脉内治疗 2(mHIAT2)(截距,-0.12 [95% CI,-0.31 至 0.07];斜率,0.85 [95% CI,0.65-1.04])。对于 sICH 模型,区分度在 0.53 至 0.83 之间,最佳校准模型是脑梗塞溶栓评分、艾伯塔省卒中计划早期 CT 评分和葡萄糖(TAG)(截距,0.13 [95% CI,-0.25 至 0.51];斜率,0.93 [95% CI,0.63-1.23])。 目前已发表的模型不足以预测接受血管内治疗的急性 VBAO 患者的功能预后和 sICH,因此需要专门针对 VBAO 病症开发更有效的模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prognostication Following Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: The Modified Hunt and Hess Grading Scale Intra‐arterial Selective Bevacizumab Administration in the Middle Meningeal Artery for Chronic Subdural Hematoma: An Early Experience in 12 Hemispheres Sex Disparities in Mortality After Endovascular Therapy in Large Core Infarcts Predicting Recanalization Failure With Conventional Devices During Endovascular Treatment Related to Vessel Occlusion Antiplatelet Therapy and Platelet Activity Testing for Neurointerventional Procedures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1