尽管采用了 eTICI 3,但神经系统的长期预后仍然不佳 - 预测因素有哪些?

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Pub Date : 2024-08-10 DOI:10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108501
{"title":"尽管采用了 eTICI 3,但神经系统的长期预后仍然不佳 - 预测因素有哪些?","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Interventional stroke therapy has become standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic strokes. Complete reperfusion (eTICI 3) portrays the best possible technical outcome. The purpose of this study was to determine possible predictors for an unfavorable neurological long-term outcome (mRS 3–6) despite achieving the best possible treatment success.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We evaluated 122 patients with stroke in the anterior circulation and complete reperfusion after mechanical thrombectomy (MT) between May 2010 and March 2020. We performed a binary logistic regression analysis with patient baseline data, stroke severity, comorbidities, premedication and treatment information as independent variables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>50 of the 122 patients included in our study showed a poor clinical outcome after 90 days (41 %). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (p = 0.033), higher admission NIHSS (p=0.009), lower admission ASPECTS (p=0.005), a pre-existing cardiovascular disease (p=0.017), and multiple passes for complete reperfusion (p=0.030) had an independent impact on unfavorable outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Older age, higher NIHSS upon admission, lower ASPECTS upon admission, cardiovascular comorbidities and multiple passes for complete reperfusion are predictors for poor neurological long-term outcome despite complete reperfusion.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10385,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724003883/pdfft?md5=e77283af8f7f17386cb1a059b0f827a4&pid=1-s2.0-S0303846724003883-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unfavorable neurological long-term outcome despite eTICI 3 – What are the predictors?\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clineuro.2024.108501\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>Interventional stroke therapy has become standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic strokes. Complete reperfusion (eTICI 3) portrays the best possible technical outcome. The purpose of this study was to determine possible predictors for an unfavorable neurological long-term outcome (mRS 3–6) despite achieving the best possible treatment success.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We evaluated 122 patients with stroke in the anterior circulation and complete reperfusion after mechanical thrombectomy (MT) between May 2010 and March 2020. We performed a binary logistic regression analysis with patient baseline data, stroke severity, comorbidities, premedication and treatment information as independent variables.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>50 of the 122 patients included in our study showed a poor clinical outcome after 90 days (41 %). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (p = 0.033), higher admission NIHSS (p=0.009), lower admission ASPECTS (p=0.005), a pre-existing cardiovascular disease (p=0.017), and multiple passes for complete reperfusion (p=0.030) had an independent impact on unfavorable outcome.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Older age, higher NIHSS upon admission, lower ASPECTS upon admission, cardiovascular comorbidities and multiple passes for complete reperfusion are predictors for poor neurological long-term outcome despite complete reperfusion.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10385,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724003883/pdfft?md5=e77283af8f7f17386cb1a059b0f827a4&pid=1-s2.0-S0303846724003883-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724003883\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0303846724003883","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的介入中风治疗已成为急性缺血性中风患者的标准治疗方法。完全再灌注(eTICI 3)是最佳的技术结果。方法我们评估了 2010 年 5 月至 2020 年 3 月间 122 例前循环中风且在机械取栓术(MT)后完全再灌注的患者。我们以患者基线数据、中风严重程度、合并症、预用药和治疗信息为自变量,进行了二元逻辑回归分析。结果122例患者中有50例(41%)在90天后临床结果不佳。多变量逻辑回归分析显示,年龄较大(p=0.033)、入院时 NIHSS 较高(p=0.009)、入院时 ASPECTS 较低(p=0.005)、原有心血管疾病(p=0.017)和多次完全再灌注(p=0.结论年龄较大、入院时 NIHSS 较高、入院时 ASPECTS 较低、心血管合并症和多次完全再灌注是尽管完全再灌注但神经系统长期预后不良的预测因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Unfavorable neurological long-term outcome despite eTICI 3 – What are the predictors?

Purpose

Interventional stroke therapy has become standard treatment for patients with acute ischemic strokes. Complete reperfusion (eTICI 3) portrays the best possible technical outcome. The purpose of this study was to determine possible predictors for an unfavorable neurological long-term outcome (mRS 3–6) despite achieving the best possible treatment success.

Methods

We evaluated 122 patients with stroke in the anterior circulation and complete reperfusion after mechanical thrombectomy (MT) between May 2010 and March 2020. We performed a binary logistic regression analysis with patient baseline data, stroke severity, comorbidities, premedication and treatment information as independent variables.

Results

50 of the 122 patients included in our study showed a poor clinical outcome after 90 days (41 %). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that older age (p = 0.033), higher admission NIHSS (p=0.009), lower admission ASPECTS (p=0.005), a pre-existing cardiovascular disease (p=0.017), and multiple passes for complete reperfusion (p=0.030) had an independent impact on unfavorable outcome.

Conclusions

Older age, higher NIHSS upon admission, lower ASPECTS upon admission, cardiovascular comorbidities and multiple passes for complete reperfusion are predictors for poor neurological long-term outcome despite complete reperfusion.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
358
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery is devoted to publishing papers and reports on the clinical aspects of neurology and neurosurgery. It is an international forum for papers of high scientific standard that are of interest to Neurologists and Neurosurgeons world-wide.
期刊最新文献
Pre-operative collapsed disc is a negative prognostic factor of back-pain outcome in trans-foraminal endoscopic discectomy. A single cohort clinical study Validation of a diagnostic support tool for early recognition of cervical arterial dissection in primary care Tirofiban vs. aspirin in patients with acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials Editorial Board Efficacy and safety of intravenous tirofiban versus standard medical treatment in acute ischemic stroke: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
×
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