| Literature DB >> 32789274 |
Tetsuo Koyama1,2, Yuki Uchiyama2, Kazuhisa Domen2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Diffusion tensor fractional anisotropy (FA) in the corticospinal tracts has been used to assess the long-term outcome in stroke patients. Patient age and the type of stroke may also affect outcomes. In this study, we investigated the associations of age, type of stroke, and FA in the ipsilesional and contralesional cerebral peduncles with stroke outcomes.Entities:
Keywords: correlation; hematoma; ischemia; outcome; prognosis
Year: 2020 PMID: 32789274 PMCID: PMC7365210 DOI: 10.2490/prm.20200006
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Prog Rehabil Med ISSN: 2432-1354
Fig. 1.Regions of interest in cerebral peduncles and examples of DTI-FA images from a patient with hemorrhagic stroke and a patient with ischemic stroke transformed into the standard space. CT, computed tomography; DWI, diffusion-weighted imaging.
Patient demographics and clinical characteristics
| Type of stroke (hemorrhagic/ischemic) | 40/40 |
| Sex (male/female) | 47/33 |
| Hemisphere affected (right/left) | 37/43 |
| Age, years | 64.4 ± 12.4 |
| rFA | 0.880 ± 0.103 |
| Contralesional FA | 0.574 ± 0.031 |
| FIM-motor | 76.5 ± 8.2 |
| LOS, days | 140.9 ± 54.2 |
| BRS S/E/F | 4.1 ± 1.6 |
| BRS H/F | 3.9 ± 1.7 |
| BRS L/E | 4.6 ± 1.2 |
Data are shown as the mean and standard deviation or as the number, as appropriate.
S/E/F, shoulder, elbow, and forearm; H/F, hand and finger; L/E, lower extremity.
Results of multivariate regression analyses of BRS data
| BRS S/E/F | BRS H/F | BRS L/E | ||||||||||
| Estimate | SE | P | Estimate | SE | P | Estimate | SE | P | ||||
| Age | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| rFA | 10.40 | 1.23 | 8.48 | <0.001 | 11.17 | 1.24 | 8.95 | <0.001 | 6.98 | 0.96 | 7.27 | <0.001 |
| Contralesional FA | 8.06 | 3.94 | 2.05 | 0.044 | 9.43 | 4.01 | 2.35 | 0.021 | 6.00 | 2.91 | 2.06 | <0.001 |
| Type of stroke | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | −0.47 | 0.20 | −2.39 | 0.019 |
| Intercept | −9.69 | 2.43 | −3.99 | <0.001 | −11.32 | 2.47 | −4.58 | <0.001 | −4.75 | 1.84 | −2.58 | 0.012 |
| Adjusted | 0.496 | 0.526 | 0.517 | |||||||||
Dummy values were assigned for the type of stroke: 1, hemorrhagic; 0, ischemic.
SE, standard error.
Fig. 2.Scatter plots showing the actual measured values (vertical axes) and the predicted values derived from the parameter estimates of multivariate regression analyses (see Tables 2 and 3). Black dots represent data from patients with hemorrhagic stroke and gray dots represent data from those with ischemic stroke. Red lines with a slope of 1 indicate a perfect fit, i.e., where the predicted and actual values are identical. Reddish areas indicate the 95% confidence intervals. Blue lines indicate the mean of the actual values obtained.
S/E/F, shoulder, elbow, and forearm; H/F, hand and finger; L/E, lower extremity.
Results of multivariate regression analyses for FIM-motor and LOS
| FIM-motor | LOS | |||||||
| Estimate | SE | P | Estimate | SE | P | |||
| Age | −0.26 | 0.06 | −4.09 | <0.001 | 0.84 | 0.39 | 2.19 | 0.032 |
| rFA | 34.72 | 7.62 | 4.56 | <0.001 | −332.88 | 46.60 | −7.14 | <0.001 |
| Contralesional FA | 57.99 | 23.91 | 2.42 | 0.018 | −317.44 | 146.29 | −2.17 | 0.033 |
| Type of Stroke | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Intercept | 29.22 | 15.14 | 1.93 | 0.057 | 562.01 | 92.59 | 6.07 | <0.001 |
| Adjusted | 0.321 | 0.420 | ||||||
Dummy values were assigned for the type of stroke; 1, hemorrhagic; 0, ischemic.
Correlations between explanatory variables
| Age | rFA | Contralesional FA | |
| rFA | 0.224 (P=0.046) | - | - |
| Contralesional FA | −0.067 (P=0.555) | 0.085 (P=0.452) | - |
| Type of stroke | −0.208 (P=0.065) | −0.340 (P=0.002) | −0.055 (P=0.628) |
Dummy values are assigned for the type of stroke: 1, hemorrhagic; 0, ischemic.