| Literature DB >> 36035225 |
Jin Hu1, Zhixian Fang2, Xia Lu1, Fei Wang3, Ningyuan Zhang4, Wenliang Pan5, Xinzheng Fu6, Gongchun Huang7, Xiaoli Tan2, Wenyu Chen2.
Abstract
Objective: Intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) is currently the main effective treatment for patients with ischemic stroke. This study aimed to analyze the factors affecting the early neurological recovery and prognosis of thrombolytic therapy after surgery and to construct predictive models. Materials andEntities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36035225 PMCID: PMC9402302 DOI: 10.1155/2022/3363735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 7.310
The prognosis of included cases.
| Group | All ( | Training cohort ( | Verification cohort ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 70.07 ± 12.54 | 70.12 ± 12.45 | 69.95 ± 12.77 |
| Poor early neurological function recovery | 452 (53.2%) | 320 (53.9%) | 132 (51.8%) |
| Poor prognosis at 3 months | 294 (34.6%) | 209 (35.2%) | 85 (33.3%) |
Figure 1The cases selecting process.
The univariate analysis of prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT.
| No. | Factors | All (N = 594) | Group 1 ( | Group 0 ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender (male) | 337 (56.7%) | 101 (48.3%) | 236 (61.3%) | 9.288 | 0.003 |
| 2 | Ages (year) | 70.12 ± 12.45 | 76.31 ± 11.06 | 66.76 ± 11.88 | 9.585 | <0.001 |
| 3 | BMI (kg/m2) | 22.73 ± 3.52 | 21.96 ± 3.53 | 23.15 ± 3.44 | -3.977 | <0.001 |
| 4 | BNIHSS (score) | 5 (2.75, 12.00) | 12 (7, 19) | 3 (2, 7) | -12.688 | <0.001 |
| 5 | Smoking (yes) | 173 (29.1%) | 47 (22.5%) | 126 (32.7%) | 6.880 | 0.009 |
| 6 | SecondThrombolysis (yes) | 13 (2.2%) | 5 (2.4%) | 9 (2.1%) | 0.630 | 0.820 |
| 7 | Hypertension (yes) | 409 (68.9%) | 156 (74.6%) | 253 (65.7%) | 5.034 | 0.025 |
| 8 | preAF (yes) | 95 (16.0%) | 55 (26.3%) | 40 (10.4%) | 25.574 | <0.001 |
| 9 | preIHD (yes) | 36 (6.1%) | 17 (8.1%) | 19 (4.9%) | 2.435 | 0.119 |
| 10 | NewAF (yes) | 28 (4.7%) | 15 (7.2%) | 13 (3.4%) | 4.356 | 0.037 |
| 11 | DM (yes) | 89 (15.0%) | 39 (18.7%) | 50 (13.0%) | 3.423 | 0.064 |
| 12 | HL (yes) | 18 (3.0%) | 6 (2.9%) | 12 (3.1%) | 0.028 | 0.867 |
| 13 | CHD (yes) | 47 (7.9%) | 20 (9.6%) | 27 (7.0%) | 1.215 | 0.270 |
| 14 | CHF (yes) | 17 (2.9%) | 10 (4.8%) | 7 (1.8%) | 4.288 | 0.038 |
| 15 | PreStrokeHistory (yes) | 87 (14.6%) | 42 (20.1%) | 45 (11.7%) | 7.659 | 0.006 |
| 16 | CHDHistory (yes) | 3 (0.5%) | 1 (0.5%) | 2 (0.5%) | 0.005 | 0.946 |
| 17 | HHcy (yes) | 33 (5.6%) | 14 (6.7%) | 19 (4.9%) | 0.803 | 0.370 |
| 18 | Aspirin (yes) | 77 (13.0%) | 31 (14.8%) | 46 (11.9%) | 0.999 | 0.318 |
| 19 | Clopidogrel (yes) | 17 (2.9%) | 10 (4.8%) | 7 (1.8%) | 4.288 | 0.038 |
| 20 | Warfarin (yes) | 8 (1.3%) | 5 (2.4%) | 3 (0.8%) | 2.653 | 0.103 |
| 21 | Atorvastatin (yes) | 27 (4.5%) | 9 (4.3%) | 18 (4.7%) | 0.043 | 0.837 |
| 22 | Rosuvastatin (yes) | 25 (4.2%) | 14 (6.7%) | 11 (2.9%) | 4.958 | 0.026 |
| 23 | PreSBP (mmHg) | 154.81 ± 20.18 | 157.09 ± 19.58 | 153.57 ± 20.42 | 2.034 | 0.029 |
| 24 | PreDBP (mmHg) | 84.9 ± 12.72 | 84.14 ± 12.96 | 85.31 ± 12.59 | -1.073 | 0.513 |
| 25 | Hb (g/L) | 139.41 ± 17.03 | 135.23 ± 18.96 | 141.68 ± 15.45 | -4.214 | <0.001 |
| 26 | RBC (◊1012/L) | 4.58 (4.26, 4.93) | 4.46 (4.03, 4.84) | 4.66 (4.35, 5.00) | -4.745 | <0.001 |
| 27 | WBC (◊109/L) | 7.65 ± 3.41 | 7.79 ± 2.99 | 7.57 ± 3.63 | 0.779 | 0.436 |
| 28 | N (%) | 63.01 ± 12.44 | 64.61 ± 13.2 | 62.14 ± 11.94 | 2.254 | 0.025 |
| 29 | PLT (◊109/L) | 186.53 ± 58.31 | 181.31 ± 55.71 | 189.37 ± 59.55 | -1.610 | 0.108 |
| 30 | K+ (mmol/L) | 3.76 ± 0.48 | 3.77 ± 0.5 | 3.75 ± 0.46 | 0.353 | 0.725 |
| 31 | Na+ (mmol/L) | 141.17 ± 4.3 | 141.11 ± 4.64 | 141.2 ± 4.11 | -0.240 | 0.811 |
| 32 | UN (mmol/L) | 6.03 (4.90, 7.20) | 6.30 (5.00, 7.70) | 5.90 (4.90, 6.99) | -2.473 | 0.013 |
| 33 | Cr ( | 77.1 ± 26.35 | 79.64 ± 32.42 | 75.72 ± 22.3 | 1.556 | 0.121 |
| 34 | PT (s) | 11.43 ± 1.06 | 11.55 ± 1.17 | 11.37 ± 1.00 | 1.955 | 0.051 |
| 35 | APTT (s) | 30.22 ± 4.96 | 29.51 ± 4.92 | 30.61 ± 4.94 | -2.609 | 0.009 |
| 36 | INR | 1 ± 0.09 | 1.01 ± 0.09 | 0.99 ± 0.09 | 2.498 | 0.013 |
| 37 | Fg (g/L) | 3.38 (2.69,4.03) | 3.50 (2.77,4.22) | 3.29 (2.65,3.88) | -2.754 | 0.006 |
| 38 | Time (min) | 154.7 ± 60.1 | 161.58 ± 61.75 | 150.97 ± 58.92 | 2.061 | 0.040 |
| 39 | Drug (u-PA) | 49 (8.2%) | 25 (12.0%) | 24 (6.2%) | 5.872 | 0.015 |
| 40 | 24hNIHSS (score) | 3 (1, 9) | 11 (6, 22) | 2 (1, 4) | 15.251 | <0.001 |
Note: Group 1 is poor neurological function recovery group, and group 0 is good neurological function recovery group.
Logistic regression analysis on prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT.
| Factors |
| S.E. | Wald |
| OR | OR 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Up | ||||||
| Ages (year) | 0.048 | 0.011 | 18.792 | 0.001 | 1.050 | 1.027 | 1.073 |
| DM (yes) | 0.821 | 0.303 | 7.333 | 0.007 | 2.272 | 1.254 | 4.115 |
| APTT (s) | -0.050 | 0.025 | 4.036 | 0.045 | 0.952 | 0.906 | 0.999 |
| Drug (u-PA) | 1.100 | 0.409 | 7.237 | 0.007 | 3.003 | 1.348 | 6.693 |
| V24hNIHSS (score) | 0.263 | 0.027 | 95.063 | 0.001 | 1.301 | 1.234 | 1.371 |
| Constant | -5.603 | 1.113 | 25.328 | 0.001 | 0.004 | ||
Figure 2The predictive nomogram and ROC curve and calibration curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT. (a) Predictive nomogram of prognosis at 3 months after IVT; (b) the ROC curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in training cohort; (c) the ROC curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in verification cohort; (d) the calibration curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in training cohort; (e) the calibration curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in verification cohort. Note: In the calibration curve, the abscissa represents the predicted probability for the poor prognosis, and the ordinate represents the actual probability for the poor prognosis. “Apparent” indicates the predicted probability of the risk model for the whole queue; “Bias-corrected” indicates the predicted probability corrected by bias-corrected approach Bootstrapping; “Ideal” indicates the ideal predicted probability. The better the coincidence of the three indicators is, the better the prediction performance of the nomogram is.
Figure 3The decision curve and clinical impact curve analysis of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT. (a) The decision curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in training cohort; (b) the decision curve of nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT cohort; (c) the nomogram predicting the CICA of the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in training cohort; (d) the nomogram predicting the CICA of the prognosis at 3 months after IVT in verification cohort. Note: (1) In the decision curve, the abscissa represents the high-risk threshold probability to predict poor prognosis, and the ordinate represents net benefit. “Model” refers to the net benefit brought by intervention through predicting high-risk patients with poor prognosis under different threshold probabilities according to the risk model; “All” and “None” represent two extreme cases. “All” refers to the net benefit brought by intervention when all patients were at high risk with poor prognosis. “None” refers to no intervention when all patients were at low risk, and under this condition, the net benefit was 0. DCA was used to analyze and compare two extreme cases, the net benefit of the risk model and the corresponding threshold probability. (2) As to the CICA, we assumed that 1000 patients were applied to our model under simulated examination conditions. “Number high risk” represents the number of high-risk patients with poor prognosis predicted by the model at different threshold probabilities. “Number high-risk event” represents the actual number of high-risk patients with poor prognosis.
Univariate analysis of early neurological recovery after IVT of patients with ischemic stroke.
| No. | Factors | All ( | Group 1 ( | Group 0 ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gender (male) | 337 (56.7%) | 171 (53.4%) | 166 (60.6%) | 3.071 | 0.080 |
| 2 | Ages (year) | 70.12 ± 12.45 | 71.93 ± 12.35 | 68.01 ± 12.26 | 3.873 | <0.001 |
| 3 | BMI (kg/m2) | 22.73 ± 3.52 | 22.38 ± 3.53 | 23.15 ± 3.46 | -2.701 | 0.007 |
| 4 | BNIHSS (score) | 5 (2.75, 12.00) | 6 (3, 13) | 4 (2, 11) | -4.939 | <0.001 |
| 5 | Smoking (yes) | 173 (29.1%) | 94 (29.4%) | 79 (28.8%) | 0.021 | 0.885 |
| 6 | SecondThrombolysis (yes) | 13 (2.2%) | 4 (1.3%) | 9 (3.3%) | 2.855 | 0.091 |
| 7 | Hypertension (yes) | 409 (68.9%) | 232 (72.5%) | 177 (64.6%) | 4.297 | 0.038 |
| 8 | preAF (yes) | 95 (16.0%) | 60 (18.8%) | 35 (12.8%) | 3.924 | 0.048 |
| 9 | preIHD (yes) | 36 (6.1%) | 19 (5.9%) | 17 (6.2%) | 0.018 | 0.892 |
| 10 | NewAF (yes) | 28 (4.7%) | 11 (3.4%) | 17 (6.2%) | 2.516 | 0.113 |
| 11 | DM (yes) | 89 (15.0%) | 57 (17.8%) | 32 (11.7%) | 4.360 | 0.037 |
| 12 | HL (yes) | 18 (3.0%) | 7 (2.2%) | 11 (4.0%) | 1.677 | 0.195 |
| 13 | CHD (yes) | 47 (7.9%) | 28 (8.8%) | 19 (6.9%) | 0.668 | 0.414 |
| 14 | CHF (yes) | 17 (2.9%) | 7 (2.2%) | 10 (3.6%) | 1.135 | 0.287 |
| 15 | PreStrokeHistory (yes) | 87 (14.6%) | 50 (15.6%) | 37 (13.5%) | 0.531 | 0.466 |
| 16 | CHDHistory (yes) | 3 (0.5%) | 1 (0.3%) | 2 (0.7%) | 0.598∗ | |
| 17 | HHcy (yes) | 33 (5.6%) | 21 (6.6%) | 12 (4.4%) | 1.341 | 0.247 |
| 18 | Aspirin (yes) | 77 (13.0%) | 38 (11.9%) | 39 (14.2%) | 0.728 | 0.394 |
| 19 | Clopidogrel (yes) | 17 (2.9%) | 11 (3.4%) | 6 (2.2%) | 0.827 | 0.363 |
| 20 | Warfarin (yes) | 8 (1.3%) | 5 (1.6%) | 3 (1.1%) | 0.731∗ | |
| 21 | Atorvastatin (yes) | 27 (4.5%) | 18 (5.6%) | 9 (3.3%) | 1.863 | 0.172 |
| 22 | Rosuvastatin (yes) | 25 (4.2%) | 12 (3.8%) | 13 (4.7%) | 0.362 | 0.547 |
| 23 | PreSBP (mmHg) | 154.81 ± 20.18 | 156.34 ± 19.16 | 153.02 ± 21.21 | 2.003 | 0.046 |
| 24 | PreDBP (mmHg) | 84.9 ± 12.72 | 84.91 ± 12.97 | 84.89 ± 12.44 | 0.015 | 0.988 |
| 25 | Hb (g/L) | 139.41 ± 17.03 | 138.51 ± 17.71 | 140.46 ± 16.17 | -1.395 | 0.164 |
| 26 | RBC (◊1012/L) | 4.58 (4.26, 4.93) | 4.54 (4.14, 4.89) | 4.65 (4.35, 4.98) | -2.717 | 0.007 |
| 27 | WBC (◊109/L) | 7.65 ± 3.41 | 7.86 ± 3.62 | 7.4 ± 3.14 | 1.629 | 0.104 |
| 28 | N (%) | 63.01 ± 12.44 | 64.16 ± 13.14 | 61.67 ± 11.45 | 2.462 | 0.014 |
| 29 | PLT (◊109/L) | 186.53 ± 58.31 | 186.97 ± 59.26 | 186.02 ± 57.28 | 0.198 | 0.843 |
| 30 | K+ (mmol/L) | 3.76 ± 0.48 | 3.75 ± 0.48 | 3.76 ± 0.47 | -0.339 | 0.735 |
| 31 | Na+ (mmol/L) | 141.17 ± 4.3 | 141 ± 4.15 | 141.36 ± 4.47 | -0.999 | 0.318 |
| 32 | UN (mmol/L) | 6.03 (4.90, 7.20) | 6.10 (4.93, 7.47) | 6.00 (4.90, 7.00) | -0.924 | 0.355 |
| 33 | Cr ( | 77.1 ± 26.35 | 78.42 ± 30.5 | 75.56 ± 20.42 | 1.358 | 0.175 |
| 34 | PT (s) | 11.43 ± 1.06 | 11.4 ± 1 | 11.48 ± 1.14 | -0.953 | 0.341 |
| 35 | APTT (s) | 30.22 ± 4.96 | 29.82 ± 4.95 | 30.7 ± 4.93 | -2.157 | 0.031 |
| 36 | INR | 1 ± 0.09 | 0.99 ± 0.09 | 1 ± 0.09 | -0.948 | 0.343 |
| 37 | Fg (g/L) | 3.38 (2.69, 4.03) | 3.46 (2.73, 4.11) | 3.30 (2.68, 3.91) | -1.681 | 0.093 |
| 38 | Time (min) | 154.7 ± 60.1 | 160.47 ± 60.24 | 147.96 ± 59.33 | 2.541 | 0.011 |
| 39 | Drug (u-PA) | 49 (8.2%) | 36 (11.3%) | 13 (4.7%) | 8.254 | 0.004 |
Note: (1) Group 1 is the poor early neurological function recovery group; group 0 is the good early neurological function recovery group; (2) ∗P represents the P value calculated by Fisher's exact probability method.
Multivariate logistic regression analysis of early neurological recovery after IVT in patients with ischemic stroke.
| Factors |
| S.E. | Wald |
| OR | OR 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | Up | ||||||
| Ages (year) | 0.022 | 0.007 | 8.654 | 0.003 | 1.022 | 1.007 | 1.037 |
| BNIHSS (score) | 0.029 | 0.011 | 6.492 | 0.011 | 1.030 | 1.007 | 1.053 |
| DM (yes) | 0.516 | 0.244 | 4.477 | 0.034 | 1.675 | 1.039 | 2.701 |
| N (yes) | 0.014 | 0.007 | 4.154 | 0.042 | 1.014 | 1.001 | 1.028 |
| Drug (u-PA) | 0.971 | 0.345 | 7.917 | 0.005 | 2.641 | 1.343 | 5.194 |
| Constant | -3.535 | 0.762 | 21.524 | 0.001 | 0.029 | ||
Figure 4The predictive nomogram and ROC curve and calibration curve of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT. (a) Predictive nomogram of early neurological recovery after IVT; (b) the ROC curve of the nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after in training cohort; (c) the ROC curve of the nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after in verification cohort; (d) the calibration curve of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in training cohort; (e) the calibration curve of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in verification cohort. Note: The calibration curve has been explained in Figure 2.
Figure 5The decision curve and clinical impact curve analysis of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT. (a) The decision curve of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in training cohort; (b) the decision curve of nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in verification cohort; (c) the clinical impact curve of the nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in training cohort; (d) the clinical impact curve of the nomogram predicting the early neurological recovery after IVT in verification cohort. Note: DCA and CICA have been explained in Figure 3.