BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2 has been used to define "good outcome" while stroke patients with mRS 3 are grouped with mRS 4-6 as having "poor outcome." Long-term data comparing quality of life (QoL), particularly across the mRS 2, 3, and 4 subgroups, are sparse. METHODS: Participants in the Interventional Management of Stroke 3 (IMS3) trial with documented 3-month mRS, functional disability (Barthel index [BI]), and self-reported EQ5D-3L QoL questionnaires at 3 months after stroke were included. EQ5D-3L summary indices were calculated using published utility weights for the US population. BI and EQ5D-3L indices were compared across mRS categories using multiple pairwise comparisons with appropriate alpha error corrections. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-three patients were included (mean age 64 ± 13 years, median baseline NIHSS 16 [IQR 12-19], mean BI 84.1 ± 25.3, and mean EQ5D-3L index 0.73 ± 0.24). While significant differences in BI were observed across mRS categories, QoL in the mRS 2 and 3 categories was similar. Based on BI and EQ5D-3L index, mRS 3 status was more similar to mRS 2 than to mRS 4 status, and large heterogeneity in the mRS 3 group was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Ischemic stroke patients who achieve mRS 2 and 3 functional outcomes seem to have similar health-related QoL scores. mRS 0-3, rather than 0-2, should be considered a good outcome category in moderate to severe ischemic stroke.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score 0-2 has been used to define "good outcome" while strokepatients with mRS 3 are grouped with mRS 4-6 as having "poor outcome." Long-term data comparing quality of life (QoL), particularly across the mRS 2, 3, and 4 subgroups, are sparse. METHODS:Participants in the Interventional Management of Stroke 3 (IMS3) trial with documented 3-month mRS, functional disability (Barthel index [BI]), and self-reported EQ5D-3L QoL questionnaires at 3 months after stroke were included. EQ5D-3L summary indices were calculated using published utility weights for the US population. BI and EQ5D-3L indices were compared across mRS categories using multiple pairwise comparisons with appropriate alpha error corrections. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-three patients were included (mean age 64 ± 13 years, median baseline NIHSS 16 [IQR 12-19], mean BI 84.1 ± 25.3, and mean EQ5D-3L index 0.73 ± 0.24). While significant differences in BI were observed across mRS categories, QoL in the mRS 2 and 3 categories was similar. Based on BI and EQ5D-3L index, mRS 3 status was more similar to mRS 2 than to mRS 4 status, and large heterogeneity in the mRS 3 group was observed. CONCLUSIONS:Ischemic strokepatients who achieve mRS 2 and 3 functional outcomes seem to have similar health-related QoL scores. mRS 0-3, rather than 0-2, should be considered a good outcome category in moderate to severe ischemic stroke.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cerebrovascular disease; Functional recovery; Ischemic stroke; Outcome; Quality of life
Authors: Napasri Chaisinanunkul; Opeolu Adeoye; Roger J Lewis; James C Grotta; Joseph Broderick; Tudor G Jovin; Raul G Nogueira; Jordan J Elm; Todd Graves; Scott Berry; Kennedy R Lees; Andrew D Barreto; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joseph P Broderick; Yuko Y Palesch; Andrew M Demchuk; Sharon D Yeatts; Pooja Khatri; Michael D Hill; Edward C Jauch; Tudor G Jovin; Bernard Yan; Frank L Silver; Rüdiger von Kummer; Carlos A Molina; Bart M Demaerschalk; Ronald Budzik; Wayne M Clark; Osama O Zaidat; Tim W Malisch; Mayank Goyal; Wouter J Schonewille; Mikael Mazighi; Stefan T Engelter; Craig Anderson; Judith Spilker; Janice Carrozzella; Karla J Ryckborst; L Scott Janis; Renée H Martin; Lydia D Foster; Thomas A Tomsick Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: William J Powers; Colin P Derdeyn; José Biller; Christopher S Coffey; Brian L Hoh; Edward C Jauch; Karen C Johnston; S Claiborne Johnston; Alexander A Khalessi; Chelsea S Kidwell; James F Meschia; Bruce Ovbiagele; Dileep R Yavagal Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 10.170
Authors: Dominik Golicki; Maciej Niewada; Julia Buczek; Anna Karlińska; Adam Kobayashi; M F Janssen; A Simon Pickard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Toby B Cumming; Leonid Churilov; Janice Collier; Geoffrey Donnan; Fiona Ellery; Helen Dewey; Peter Langhorne; Richard I Lindley; Marj Moodie; Amanda G Thrift; Julie Bernhardt Journal: Neurology Date: 2019-07-26 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Wenfei Wei; Rafia S Rasu; José J Hernández-Muñoz; Renee J Flores; Nahid J Rianon; Genesis A Hernández-Vizcarrondo; Adam T Brown Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Chen Lin; Jungwha Lee; Christopher P Hurt; Ronald M Lazar; Yurany A Arevalo; Shyam Prabhakaran; Richard L Harvey Journal: PM R Date: 2020-08-20 Impact factor: 2.298
Authors: Matthew M Yuen; Anjali M Prabhat; Mercy H Mazurek; Isha R Chavva; Anna Crawford; Bradley A Cahn; Rachel Beekman; Jennifer A Kim; Kevin T Gobeske; Nils H Petersen; Guido J Falcone; Emily J Gilmore; David Y Hwang; Adam S Jasne; Hardik Amin; Richa Sharma; Charles Matouk; Adrienne Ward; Joseph Schindler; Lauren Sansing; Adam de Havenon; Ani Aydin; Charles Wira; Gordon Sze; Matthew S Rosen; W Taylor Kimberly; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Sci Adv Date: 2022-04-20 Impact factor: 14.957
Authors: Alina Königsberg; Andrew T DeMarco; Carola Mayer; Anke Wouters; Eckhard Schlemm; Martin Ebinger; Tae-Hee Cho; Matthias Endres; Jochen B Fiebach; Jens Fiehler; Ivana Galinovic; Josep Puig; Vincent Thijs; Robin Lemmens; Keith W Muir; Norbert Nighoghossian; Salvador Pedraza; Claus Z Simonsen; Christian Gerloff; Götz Thomalla; Bastian Cheng Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Robert W Regenhardt; Michael J Young; Mark R Etherton; Alvin S Das; Christopher J Stapleton; Aman B Patel; Michael H Lev; Joshua A Hirsch; Natalia S Rost; Thabele M Leslie-Mazwi Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2020-10-30 Impact factor: 8.572