| Literature DB >> 34093387 |
Boris Modrau1, Anthony Winder2, Niels Hjort3, Martin Nygård Johansen4, Grethe Andersen5, Jens Fiehler6, Henrik Vorum7, Nils D Forkert2.
Abstract
Background and Purpose: The theophylline in acute ischemic stroke trial investigated the neuroprotective effect of theophylline as an add-on to thrombolytic therapy in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The aim of this pre-planned subgroup analysis was to use predictive modeling to virtually test for differences in the follow-up lesion volumes. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: clinical trial; machine learning; neuroprotective drugs; reperfusion; stroke; theophylline; thrombolytic therapy
Year: 2021 PMID: 34093387 PMCID: PMC8175622 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2021.613029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Baseline characteristics.
| Median age – year (IQR) | 71 (55–77) | 69 (52–78) | 0.86 |
| Female sex – no. (%) | 10 (37) | 11 (44) | 0.61 |
| Median NIHSS score (IQR) | 8 (6–13) | 7 (6–8) | 0.12 |
| Hypertension – no. (%) | 14 (52) | 16 (64) | 0.38 |
| Diabetes mellitus – no. (%) | 0 (0) | 4 (8) | 0.03 |
| Hyperlipidemia – no. (%) | 16 (59) | 16 (64) | 0.73 |
| Arterial fibrillation – no. (%) | 2 (7) | 4 (16) | 0.33 |
| Peripheral arterial disease – no. (%) | 2 (7) | 0 (0) | 0.16 |
| Previous myocardial infarction – no. (%) | 1 (4) | 1 (4) | 0.96 |
| Previous transitory ischemic attack – no. (%) | 2 (7) | 2 (8) | 0.94 |
| Previous stroke – no. (%) | 3 (11) | 3 (12) | 0.92 |
| Previous intracranial hemorrhage – no. (%) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 |
| Current smoking – no. (%) | 10 (37) | 9 (36) | 0.94 |
| Antiplatelet agent – no. (%) | 7 (26) | 9 (36) | 0.43 |
| Mean volume of ischemic core – ml (SD) | 4.4 (6.4) | 4.3 (7.8) | 0.81 |
| Mean volume of baseline tissue at risk – ml (SD) | 9.6 (22.0) | 6.5 (13.9) | 0.44 |
| Large vessel occlusion – no. (%) | 12 (44) | 11 (44) | 0.97 |
| 0.85 | |||
| Anterior cerebral artery – no. (%) | 0 (0) | 1 (4) | |
| Middle cerebral artery (M1-segment) – no. (%) | 6 (22) | 4 (16) | |
| Middle cerebral artery (M2-3-segment) – no. (%) | 5 (19) | 5 (20) | |
| Posterior cerebral artery – no. (%) | 1 (4) | 1 (4) | |
| No visible large vessel occlusion – no. (%) | 15 (55) | 14 (56) | |
| 0.97 | |||
| TIMI-score 0–1 – no. (%) | 12 (44) | 11 (44) | |
| TIMI-score 2–3 – no. (%) | 15 (56) | 14 (56) | |
| Median stroke onset – door time – min (IQR) | 81 (48–148) | 85 (68–130) | 0.41 |
| Median door to thrombolysis-time – min (IQR) | 39 (35–45) | 41 (35–51) | 0.75 |
| Additional endovascular therapy – no. (%) | 3 (11) | 4 (16) | 0.61 |
The baseline characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different apart from diabetes mellitus (p = 0.03).
IQR, Interquartile range; SD, Standard deviation; NIHSS, National Institute of Health Stroke Scale; TIMI, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grading of arterial obstruction (score zero, complete occlusion; one, severe stenosis; two, mild to moderate stenosis; three, normal arterial caliber).
Figure 1Predicted volume of follow-up lesions. Box-whisker diagram depicting the mean predicted volumes of follow-up lesions based on the trainings datasets of patients treated with theophylline and placebo: Interquartile range with median (box), lower and upper interquartile +1.5 interquartile range (whisker), and outliers (dots).
Figure 2Interaction of infarct size and prediction. Bland Altman plot depicting the predicted volume of follow-up lesions plotted as the difference between the two predictions (theophylline and placebo) over the average of the two predicted volumes for each patient: Values <0 indicate that theophylline is better than placebo while values >0 indicate that placebo is better than theophylline: Middle line indicates mean difference between the predicted values, upper and lower line indicates the higher and lower limit of agreement (2x standard deviation) indicating no significant difference between small and large infarct volumes.
Figure 3Subgroup analysis. Box-whisker diagrams depicting the predicted volume of follow-up lesions plotted as the difference between the two predictions (theophylline and placebo) for each patient: Values <0 indicate that theophylline is better than placebo and values >0 indicate that placebo is better than theophylline indicating no significant difference for patients with and without tissue-at-risk at baseline, for patients with cortical vs. lacunar infarction, for patients with and without large vessel occlusion at baseline, and for patients with and without recanalization at follow-up.