Literature DB >> 36035225

Influence Factors and Predictive Models for the Outcome of Patients with Ischemic Stroke after Intravenous Thrombolysis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

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 and
Methods: A total of 849 patients with ischemic stroke who received IVT treatment at six centers from June 2017 to March 2021 were included. Patients were divided into the training cohort and the validation cohort. Based on the independent factors that influence the early recovery of neurological function and the prognosis, the respective predictive nomograms were established. The predictive accuracy and discrimination ability of the nomograms were evaluated by ROC and calibration curve, while the decision curve and clinical impact curve were adopted to evaluate the clinical applicability of the nomograms.
Results: The nomogram constructed based on the factors affecting the prognosis in 3 months had ideal accuracy as the AUC (95% CI) was 0.901 (0.874~0.927) in the training cohort and 0.877 (0.826~0.929) in the validation cohort. The accuracy of the nomogram is required to be improved, since the AUC (95% CI) of the training cohort and the validation cohort was 0.641 (0.597~0.685) and 0.627 (0.559~0.696), respectively. Conclusions: Based on this ideal and practical prediction model, we can early identify and actively intervene in patients with ischemic stroke after IVT to improve their prognosis. Nevertheless, the accuracy of predicting nomograms for the recovery of early neurological function after IVT still needs improvement.
Copyright © 2022 Jin Hu et al.

Entities:  

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


1. Introduction

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) study estimates rank stroke as the second most common cause of death in the world [1, 2] and the third most common cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) [3], with 75% of stroke deaths and 81% of disability-adjusted life years occur in low- and middle-income countries [4]. Stroke can be divided into ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke. Ischemic stroke is caused by the sudden loss of function led by the interruption of blood supply to part of the brain, and hemorrhagic stroke is caused by angiorrhexis or abnormal blood vessel structure [5]. In general, ischemic stroke accounts for about 80% of stroke cases, and hemorrhagic stroke accounts for about 20%, but the actual proportion of stroke types depends on different patients [6]. According to data from the Chinese Hospital Quality Monitoring System, in 2018, China's 1853 tertiary A hospitals admitted a total of 3,010,204 stroke inpatients, of which 2,466,785 were ischemic stroke patients, accounting for 81.9% [7]. On a global scale, the burden of stroke has increased significantly in the past few decades due to the increase in population size and aging population and the prevalence of changeable risk factors for stroke [8, 9]. Studies have shown that at the beginning of the twenty-first century, about 1.1 million Europeans suffer from stroke each year, and it is predicted that by 2025, 1.5 million Europeans will suffer from stroke each year, and the incidence of young people will gradually increase [10]. Acute reperfusion therapy is by far the most effective method for the treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke [11]. However, after thrombolytic therapy, the early neurological function of a large number of patients has not been effectively improved. Some patients have poor prognosis after 90 days of treatment. The situation is not optimistic. This part of patients tends to bring an increasingly huge burden to the family and society [12]. This study aims to analyze the factors affecting the early neurological function of patients with acute ischemic stroke (intravenous thrombolysis, IVT) and the prognosis at 3 months after surgery and to establish a predictive model to improve the safety and effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy.

2. Materials and Methods

We included ischemic stroke patients undergoing IVT treatment from six centers (the First People's Hospital of Pinghu, the First Hospital of Jiaxing, the First People's Hospital of Jiashan, the First People's Hospital of Tongxiang, the People's Hospital of Haiyan, and the People's Hospital of Haining from June 2017 to March 2021). According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the cases that fit this study were selected. The inclusion criteria are as follows: (1) 18 years old or older; (2) patients treated with alteplase thrombolysis and whose symptom onset time (referring to the time from symptom onset to thrombolytic treatment) ≤ 4.5 hours, while patients treated with urokinase and whose symptom onset time ≤ 6 hours; (3) cerebral infarction is diagnosed, and there is a certain neurological deficit; and (4) the patient or his family members agree to sign an informed consent. The exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) patients with hemorrhagic cerebral infarction; (2) patients with transient ischemic attack; (3) patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; (4) patients with brain tumors; (5) patients whose main observation indicators are incomplete due to various reasons; and (6) patients with contraindications to IVT (such as intracranial hemorrhage, history of intracranial hemorrhage, intracranial tumor, giant intracranial aneurysm, active visceral hemorrhage, platelets less than 100◊109/L, oral anticoagulant and INR> 1.7 or PT> 15 seconds, and intracranial or intraspinal surgery within 3 months before IVT).

2.1. Patient and Public Involvement

No patient was involved

2.2. Data Collection and Prognosis Classification

The data collected in this study were mainly patient baseline data and outcome indicators, including general information (gender, age, BMI, NIHSS score at admission, and smoking), some past medical history (secondary thrombolysis, hypertension, previous atrial fibrillation and previous ischemic heart disease, etc.), previous medication history (aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin), laboratory test results (systolic pressure before thrombolysis, diastolic pressure before thrombolysis, hemoglobin, red blood cell count, etc.), treatment information (thrombolysis time and thrombolytic medication), and outcome indicators (24-hour NIHSS score and mRS score at 3 months after surgery). This study discussed the early neurological function recovery after thrombolytic therapy and the prognosis at 3 months. Among them, the early recovery of neurological function was assessed by the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) [13], and the prognosis at 3 months after the operation was assessed by the modified Rankin scale. The specific groups are as follows: Early neurological function recovery [14]. δ ≥ 4 or 24-hour NIHSS≤1 was defined as the good early neurological function recovery group (group 0), and δ < 4 and 24-hour NIHSS>1 was the poor early neurological function recovery group (group 1). Besides, δ = NIHSS at admission 24-hour NIHSS Prognosis at 3 months after surgery [15]. The prognosis at 3 months after surgery was measured by mRS score at 3 months after surgery, and the specific definition is as follows: mRS score at 3 months after surgery ≤2 was defined as the good prognosis group (group 0), and mRS score> 2 at 3 months after surgery was considered as the short-term poor prognosis group (group 1).

2.3. Model Construction and Verification

The samples included in this study were divided into training cohorts and verification cohorts at a ratio of 7 : 3 by nonrepeated random sampling. Variables with P < 0.1 based on the univariate analysis in the training cohort were used as predictors [16] and included them in the multivariate binary logistic regression. The entry method was Forward: LR. Then we analyzed the independent influencing factors that affected the early recovery of neurological function and the prognosis at 3 months after the surgery and established the predictive nomograms, respectively. In the training cohort and verification cohort, ROC curve and calibration curve were used to evaluate the predictive accuracy and discrimination ability of the nomogram, and the decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve analysis (CICA) were used to evaluate the nomogram and the clinical applicability of [17, 18].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

SPSS 23 statistical software (IBM, Armonk, NY) was used to support univariate analysis and multivariate binary logistic. Continuous data is demonstrated as mean ± standard deviation or median (lower quartile and upper quartile), and t-test or Mann–Whitney U test was used for the comparison between the two groups; categorical data was demonstrated as n (%), and the chi-square test was used for comparison between groups. The construction of the nomogram and the drawing of ROC, decision curve, and clinical impact curve were completed in R4.0.4. Bilateral P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Information

We enrolled 1,318 stroke patients who received IVT treatment from six hospital centers from June 2017 to March 2021 and excluded patients with hemorrhagic stroke, transient cerebral ischemia, complemented main indicators, and contraindications to IVT, and finally 849 patients were included in this study. Among the samples, 452 patients had poor recovery of neurological function in the early stage, and 294 patients had a poor prognosis at 3 months postoperatively. We use nonrepetitive random sampling at a ratio of 7 : 3, and draw the training cohort (594 cases) and the verification cohort (255 cases). In the training cohort, 320 patients had poor recovery of early neurological function, and 209 patients had a poor prognosis at 3 months postoperatively. In the verification cohort, 132 patients had poor recovery of neurological function early, and 85 patients had poor prognosis at 3 months after surgery (Table 1 and Figure 1).
Table 1

The prognosis of included cases.

GroupAll (N = 849)Training cohort (N = 594)Verification cohort (N = 255)
Age70.07 ± 12.5470.12 ± 12.4569.95 ± 12.77
Poor early neurological function recovery452 (53.2%)320 (53.9%)132 (51.8%)
Poor prognosis at 3 months294 (34.6%)209 (35.2%)85 (33.3%)
Figure 1

The cases selecting process.

3.2. Prognosis Prediction Model at 3 Months after Surgery

3.2.1. Univariate Analysis

The univariate analysis of the prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT showed that gender, age, BMI, NIHSS score at admission (BNIHSS), smoking, hypertension, previous atrial fibrillation (preAF), new-onset atrial fibrillation (NewAF), congestive heart failure (CHF), previous stroke history (PreStrokeHistory), clopidogrel history (Clopidogrel), rosuvastatin history (Rosuvastatin), pre-thrombolysis systolic blood pressure (PreSBP), hemoglobin (Hb), red blood cell count (RBC), neutrophils (N), APTT, INR, fibrinogen (Fg), medication time (Time), thrombolytic medication (Drug), and 24-hour NIHSS score (24hNHISS) were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Although diabetes (DM) and PT were not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05), they were close to 0.05. The above factors may affect the prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT (Table 2).
Table 2

The univariate analysis of prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT.

No.FactorsAll (N = 594)Group 1 (N = 209)Group 0 (N = 385) t/z/χ2 P
1Gender (male)337 (56.7%)101 (48.3%)236 (61.3%)9.2880.003
2Ages (year)70.12 ± 12.4576.31 ± 11.0666.76 ± 11.889.585<0.001
3BMI (kg/m2)22.73 ± 3.5221.96 ± 3.5323.15 ± 3.44-3.977<0.001
4BNIHSS (score)5 (2.75, 12.00)12 (7, 19)3 (2, 7)-12.688<0.001
5Smoking (yes)173 (29.1%)47 (22.5%)126 (32.7%)6.8800.009
6SecondThrombolysis (yes)13 (2.2%)5 (2.4%)9 (2.1%)0.6300.820
7Hypertension (yes)409 (68.9%)156 (74.6%)253 (65.7%)5.0340.025
8preAF (yes)95 (16.0%)55 (26.3%)40 (10.4%)25.574<0.001
9preIHD (yes)36 (6.1%)17 (8.1%)19 (4.9%)2.4350.119
10NewAF (yes)28 (4.7%)15 (7.2%)13 (3.4%)4.3560.037
11DM (yes)89 (15.0%)39 (18.7%)50 (13.0%)3.4230.064
12HL (yes)18 (3.0%)6 (2.9%)12 (3.1%)0.0280.867
13CHD (yes)47 (7.9%)20 (9.6%)27 (7.0%)1.2150.270
14CHF (yes)17 (2.9%)10 (4.8%)7 (1.8%)4.2880.038
15PreStrokeHistory (yes)87 (14.6%)42 (20.1%)45 (11.7%)7.6590.006
16CHDHistory (yes)3 (0.5%)1 (0.5%)2 (0.5%)0.0050.946
17HHcy (yes)33 (5.6%)14 (6.7%)19 (4.9%)0.8030.370
18Aspirin (yes)77 (13.0%)31 (14.8%)46 (11.9%)0.9990.318
19Clopidogrel (yes)17 (2.9%)10 (4.8%)7 (1.8%)4.2880.038
20Warfarin (yes)8 (1.3%)5 (2.4%)3 (0.8%)2.6530.103
21Atorvastatin (yes)27 (4.5%)9 (4.3%)18 (4.7%)0.0430.837
22Rosuvastatin (yes)25 (4.2%)14 (6.7%)11 (2.9%)4.9580.026
23PreSBP (mmHg)154.81 ± 20.18157.09 ± 19.58153.57 ± 20.422.0340.029
24PreDBP (mmHg)84.9 ± 12.7284.14 ± 12.9685.31 ± 12.59-1.0730.513
25Hb (g/L)139.41 ± 17.03135.23 ± 18.96141.68 ± 15.45-4.214<0.001
26RBC (◊1012/L)4.58 (4.26, 4.93)4.46 (4.03, 4.84)4.66 (4.35, 5.00)-4.745<0.001
27WBC (◊109/L)7.65 ± 3.417.79 ± 2.997.57 ± 3.630.7790.436
28N (%)63.01 ± 12.4464.61 ± 13.262.14 ± 11.942.2540.025
29PLT (◊109/L)186.53 ± 58.31181.31 ± 55.71189.37 ± 59.55-1.6100.108
30K+ (mmol/L)3.76 ± 0.483.77 ± 0.53.75 ± 0.460.3530.725
31Na+ (mmol/L)141.17 ± 4.3141.11 ± 4.64141.2 ± 4.11-0.2400.811
32UN (mmol/L)6.03 (4.90, 7.20)6.30 (5.00, 7.70)5.90 (4.90, 6.99)-2.4730.013
33Cr (μmol/L)77.1 ± 26.3579.64 ± 32.4275.72 ± 22.31.5560.121
34PT (s)11.43 ± 1.0611.55 ± 1.1711.37 ± 1.001.9550.051
35APTT (s)30.22 ± 4.9629.51 ± 4.9230.61 ± 4.94-2.6090.009
36INR1 ± 0.091.01 ± 0.090.99 ± 0.092.4980.013
37Fg (g/L)3.38 (2.69,4.03)3.50 (2.77,4.22)3.29 (2.65,3.88)-2.7540.006
38Time (min)154.7 ± 60.1161.58 ± 61.75150.97 ± 58.922.0610.040
39Drug (u-PA)49 (8.2%)25 (12.0%)24 (6.2%)5.8720.015
4024hNIHSS (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.

3.3. Model Construction

The above-mentioned possible influencing factors were used as independent variables, and the prognosis at 3 months after IVT was used as the dependent variable. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used, and the Forward: LR was used as the independent variable entry method. We analyzed the independent influencing factors that affect the prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT. The analysis results show that age, diabetes DM, APTT, thrombolytic medication (Drug), and 24-hour NIHSS score (24hNIHSS) were independent factors influencing the prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT, and a nomogram of the prognosis was constructed (Table 3).
Table 3

Logistic regression analysis on prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT.

Factors B S.E.Wald P OROR 95% CI
LowUp
Ages (year)0.0480.01118.7920.0011.0501.0271.073
DM (yes)0.8210.3037.3330.0072.2721.2544.115
APTT (s)-0.0500.0254.0360.0450.9520.9060.999
Drug (u-PA)1.1000.4097.2370.0073.0031.3486.693
V24hNIHSS (score)0.2630.02795.0630.0011.3011.2341.371
Constant-5.6031.11325.3280.0010.004

3.3.1. Model Verification

The accuracy of the nomogram predicting the prognosis at 3 months after IVT was analyzed by the ROC curve, and the AUC (95% CI) in the training cohort was 0.901 (0.874~0.927), the AUC in the verification cohort (95% CI) is 0.877 (0.826~0.929), which shows that the prognosis at 3 months after surgery can be well predicted. The calibration curve based on the training and verification cohort shows that the predicted value of the nomogram for the poor prognosis is in good accordance with the actual value (Figure 2).
Figure 2

The 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.

Decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve analysis (CICA) were used to evaluate the clinical applicability of nomogram predicting the prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke at 3 months after IVT. Both showed that the model had a large practical threshold probability range Pt> 0.3, and the benefit was higher. The figure showed that when the threshold probability Pt = 0.4, the cost/benefit = 2 : 3. CICA hypothesized that if the prognosis of 1000 people was evaluated, and we compared the model evaluation results with the actual results, when Pt = 0.4, the two curves came to be very close (that is, the number of high-risk patients predicted by the model was very close to the actual number of high-risk patients). In summary, this model had a very ideal effect on the prognosis of 3 months after IVT (Figure 3).
Figure 3

The 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.

3.4. Predictive Model of Early Neurological Function Recovery

3.4.1. Univariate Analysis

The results of univariate analysis of the early recovery of neurological function of patients with ischemic stroke after IVT showed that age, BMI, NIHSS score at admission (BNIHSS), hypertension, previous atrial fibrillation (preAF), diabetes (DM), systolic blood pressure before thrombolysis (PreSBP), red blood cell count (RBC), neutrophils (N%), APTT, treatment time ONT (Time), and thrombolytic medication (Drug) were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.05), although gender, second thrombolysis (SecondThrombolysis), and fibrinogen (FG) are not significantly different (P > 0.05) but less than 0.1. The above factors may be the influencing factors of early neurological function after IVT in patients with ischemic stroke (Table 4).
Table 4

Univariate analysis of early neurological recovery after IVT of patients with ischemic stroke.

No.FactorsAll (N = 594)Group 1 (N = 320)Group 0 (N = 274) t/z/χ2 P
1Gender (male)337 (56.7%)171 (53.4%)166 (60.6%)3.0710.080
2Ages (year)70.12 ± 12.4571.93 ± 12.3568.01 ± 12.263.873<0.001
3BMI (kg/m2)22.73 ± 3.5222.38 ± 3.5323.15 ± 3.46-2.7010.007
4BNIHSS (score)5 (2.75, 12.00)6 (3, 13)4 (2, 11)-4.939<0.001
5Smoking (yes)173 (29.1%)94 (29.4%)79 (28.8%)0.0210.885
6SecondThrombolysis (yes)13 (2.2%)4 (1.3%)9 (3.3%)2.8550.091
7Hypertension (yes)409 (68.9%)232 (72.5%)177 (64.6%)4.2970.038
8preAF (yes)95 (16.0%)60 (18.8%)35 (12.8%)3.9240.048
9preIHD (yes)36 (6.1%)19 (5.9%)17 (6.2%)0.0180.892
10NewAF (yes)28 (4.7%)11 (3.4%)17 (6.2%)2.5160.113
11DM (yes)89 (15.0%)57 (17.8%)32 (11.7%)4.3600.037
12HL (yes)18 (3.0%)7 (2.2%)11 (4.0%)1.6770.195
13CHD (yes)47 (7.9%)28 (8.8%)19 (6.9%)0.6680.414
14CHF (yes)17 (2.9%)7 (2.2%)10 (3.6%)1.1350.287
15PreStrokeHistory (yes)87 (14.6%)50 (15.6%)37 (13.5%)0.5310.466
16CHDHistory (yes)3 (0.5%)1 (0.3%)2 (0.7%)0.598∗
17HHcy (yes)33 (5.6%)21 (6.6%)12 (4.4%)1.3410.247
18Aspirin (yes)77 (13.0%)38 (11.9%)39 (14.2%)0.7280.394
19Clopidogrel (yes)17 (2.9%)11 (3.4%)6 (2.2%)0.8270.363
20Warfarin (yes)8 (1.3%)5 (1.6%)3 (1.1%)0.731∗
21Atorvastatin (yes)27 (4.5%)18 (5.6%)9 (3.3%)1.8630.172
22Rosuvastatin (yes)25 (4.2%)12 (3.8%)13 (4.7%)0.3620.547
23PreSBP (mmHg)154.81 ± 20.18156.34 ± 19.16153.02 ± 21.212.0030.046
24PreDBP (mmHg)84.9 ± 12.7284.91 ± 12.9784.89 ± 12.440.0150.988
25Hb (g/L)139.41 ± 17.03138.51 ± 17.71140.46 ± 16.17-1.3950.164
26RBC (◊1012/L)4.58 (4.26, 4.93)4.54 (4.14, 4.89)4.65 (4.35, 4.98)-2.7170.007
27WBC (◊109/L)7.65 ± 3.417.86 ± 3.627.4 ± 3.141.6290.104
28N (%)63.01 ± 12.4464.16 ± 13.1461.67 ± 11.452.4620.014
29PLT (◊109/L)186.53 ± 58.31186.97 ± 59.26186.02 ± 57.280.1980.843
30K+ (mmol/L)3.76 ± 0.483.75 ± 0.483.76 ± 0.47-0.3390.735
31Na+ (mmol/L)141.17 ± 4.3141 ± 4.15141.36 ± 4.47-0.9990.318
32UN (mmol/L)6.03 (4.90, 7.20)6.10 (4.93, 7.47)6.00 (4.90, 7.00)-0.9240.355
33Cr (μmol/L)77.1 ± 26.3578.42 ± 30.575.56 ± 20.421.3580.175
34PT (s)11.43 ± 1.0611.4 ± 111.48 ± 1.14-0.9530.341
35APTT (s)30.22 ± 4.9629.82 ± 4.9530.7 ± 4.93-2.1570.031
36INR1 ± 0.090.99 ± 0.091 ± 0.09-0.9480.343
37Fg (g/L)3.38 (2.69, 4.03)3.46 (2.73, 4.11)3.30 (2.68, 3.91)-1.6810.093
38Time (min)154.7 ± 60.1160.47 ± 60.24147.96 ± 59.332.5410.011
39Drug (u-PA)49 (8.2%)36 (11.3%)13 (4.7%)8.2540.004

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.

3.4.2. Model Construction

The above-mentioned possible influencing factors were used as independent variables, and the early neurological function recovery after IVT was used as the dependent variable. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used, and the Forward: LR was used as the independent variable entry method. We analyzed the independent factors affecting the early recovery of neurological function in patients with ischemic stroke after IVT. The analysis results showed that age, NIHSS score at admission (BNIHSS), diabetes (DM), neutrophils (N), and medication (Drugs) were independent factors affecting the prognosis of IVT patients with ischemic stroke, and a nomogram of the prognosis was constructed (Table 5).
Table 5

Multivariate logistic regression analysis of early neurological recovery after IVT in patients with ischemic stroke.

Factors B S.E.Wald P OROR 95% CI
LowUp
Ages (year)0.0220.0078.6540.0031.0221.0071.037
BNIHSS (score)0.0290.0116.4920.0111.0301.0071.053
DM (yes)0.5160.2444.4770.0341.6751.0392.701
N (yes)0.0140.0074.1540.0421.0141.0011.028
Drug (u-PA)0.9710.3457.9170.0052.6411.3435.194
Constant-3.5350.76221.5240.0010.029

3.4.3. Model Verification

The accuracy of the nomogram for early neurological function prediction was analyzed by ROC curve. The AUC (95% CI) in the training cohort was 0.641 (0.597~0.685), and the AUC (95% CI) in the verification cohort was 0.627 (0.559~0.696), which showed that the effect of distinguishing early neurological function was not ideal. The calibration curve based on the training cohort and the validation cohort showed that the predicted value of the nomogram for poor prognosis was in good accordance with the actual value (Figure 4).
Figure 4

The 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.

Decision curve analysis (DCA) and clinical impact curve analysis (CICA) were used to evaluate the clinical applicability of the nomogram predicting early neurological recovery. Both showed that the model had a relatively narrow range of practical thresholds. CICA hypothesized that if the prognosis of 1000 people was evaluated, and we compared the model evaluation results with the actual results, when Pt> 0.6, the two curves came to be very close (that is, the number of high-risk patients predicted by the model was very close to the actual number of high-risk patients). At this time the cost/benefit = 3 : 2 (Figure 5).
Figure 5

The 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.

4. Discussions

At present, there are a variety of effective treatment for patients with acute ischemic stroke, such as IVT and intravascular interventional therapy, which can improve the neurological outcome of patients, and the two can be combined for appropriate patients [19, 20]. But still, IVT is still the first choice for a large number of patients. The China Stroke Prevention and Treatment Report 2019 shows that the number of people receiving IVT treatment in 298 advanced stroke centers in China in 2018 was 43,486 [21, 22]. Not all patients can benefit from thrombolysis. A study by Emberson et al. showed that 69% of patients still had a poor prognosis (mRS ≥ 3 points) at 3 months after thrombolysis [23]. Poor prognosis not only reduces the direct benefits of IVT, but also reduces the quality of life of patients and increases the medical burden on the family and society [24]. The results of the ECASS III test shows that IVT at 3.0-4.5 h still has effect [25], and the IST-3 test shows that IVT on the onset of disease within 6 hours have effect [26]. The subjects of this study were enrolled from six centers who received IVT treatment within 6 hours of acute ischemic stroke since the onset of the disease. This study discusses and analyzes the factors affecting the early neurological function recovery after IVT and the prognosis at 3 months after the surgery and establishes corresponding prediction model to form an early identification and active intervention of patients who may have a poor prognosis and improve their prognosis. This study shows that old age, diabetes, and urokinase thrombolysis are risk factors for poor early recovery of neurological function and poor prognosis at 3 months after IVT in patients with ischemic stroke. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke point out that [27] old age and diabetes are not only independent risk factors for the occurrence of acute ischemic stroke, but are also considered to be important risk factors affecting the prognosis of IVT. Older age is one of the most important and independent predictors of stroke death and adverse outcomes [28, 29]. A study by Ulrich et al. [30] showed that diabetes more than doubled the risk of stroke. About 20% of diabetic patients die of stroke. The course of diabetes also increases the risk of nonhemorrhagic stroke. Morgenstern et al. [31] verified that age-specific incidence and rate showed that diabetes would increase the incidence of ischemic stroke in all age groups. The thrombolytic stroke prediction model incorporates age and diabetes history into the predictive variables. The model has an ideal effect in predicting the prognosis of thrombolytic therapy for good and severe prognosis (C values are 0.79 and 0.78, respectively) [32]. In recent years, recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (rt-PA) has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) as the only thrombolytic drug that can be used for ischemic stroke. However, due to the high cost, extremely short treatment window, and increased risk of bleeding if out of the treatment window, a large number of ischemic stroke patients worldwide have not benefited from the drug. Urokinase plasminogen activator (u-PA) is usually used as an alternative [33]. As mentioned above, among the 43,486 patients in China in 2018, 7282 patients were treated with urokinase thrombolysis, accounting for 16.7%, and the rest were treated with rt-PA. A nationwide prospective Chinese registry study with a sample size of 3810 [34] compared the efficacy of rt-PA and u-PA in ischemic stroke. The results showed that the two treatments have an excellent outcome (90-day mRS; there was no significant difference between score< 2) and symptomatic bleeding (P > 0.05). This study showed that compared with rt-PA, u-PA can significantly increase the risk of poor early neurological function recovery and poor prognosis at 3 months after surgery. In addition, this study shows that the NIHSS score at admission and the proportion of centrifugal cells before thrombolysis are also independent factors influencing the poor early of neurological function recovery after IVT. Perez-de-Puig et al. [35] showed through animal experiments that the accumulation of neutrophils can cause the destruction of the blood-brain barrier, thereby increasing the risk of hemorrhagic transformation and the incidence of poor prognosis after IVT. The clinical study of Liu et al. [36] showed that the increase in neutrophil count and neutrophil percentage before thrombolysis is associated with an increased risk of poor prognosis in patients with ischemic stroke after IVT. The NIHSS score at admission is used as a scale for the severity of stroke, and the severity of the disease is positively correlated with its score. Therefore, a large number of predictive models for the prognosis of thrombolysis included NIHSS score at admission as a variable [37]. At the same time, the NIHSS score 24 hours after thrombolysis and APTT before thrombolysis are also independent factors influencing the prognosis at 3 months after IVT. This study showed that the NIHSS score 24 hours after IVT is an independent influencing factor of the prognosis at 3 months after surgery rather than the NIHSS score at admission. This shows that the severity of the disease after IVT can better predict the prognosis at 3 months postoperatively than the severity before treatment. Rangaraju et al. [38] verified that the NIHSS score at 24 hours in the postmortem analysis of 2 randomized controlled stroke trials can better predict the long-term outcome of ischemic stroke. Yongtao et al. [39] showed that APTT level before thrombolysis is an independent risk factor that influences the early neurological improvement of acute ischemic stroke after intravenous IVT. APTT prediction of the best segmentation point of early neurological function improvement before thrombolysis is at 27.15(s). When the APTT level is <27.15(s), the early neurological function improvement is significantly better than APTT>27.15(s). However, the relationship with the prognosis at 3 months after IVT has not been verified. In recent years, the relationship between smoking and adverse outcomes after IVT for ischemic stroke has not yet been confirmed. The study of Moulin et al. [40] showed that smoking does not independently affect the prognosis of patients with cerebral ischemia treated with rt-PA. The better outcome of smokers is the result of different case combinations. This is also verified by the study of Kurmann et al. [41]. In the study of Sun et al. [42], smoking increases the risk of hemorrhagic transformation (HT) after IVT. This study shows that smoking is not an independent factor influencing the prognosis of IVT in patients with ischemic stroke. And among smoking patients, the propensity scoring method was used to match patients with high smoking age (>30 years) and patients with low smoking age (≤30 years), and it is found that the poor prognosis of the two was also very similar (see Table S1 and Table S2).

4.1. Limitations

This study has certain limitations. Although the factors that affect the early recovery of neurological function after IVT have been analyzed, the accuracy of the prediction nomogram for the recovery of early neurological function established based on this needs to be improved.

5. Conclusions

This study uses only a small number of indicators to establish a predictive model for the early neurological recovery of patients with ischemic after IVT and the prognosis at 3 months after surgery. These predictive factors are easy to obtain in clinical practice. There is a large difference in the prediction accuracy of the two models (Delong's test P < 0.05). The accuracy of the prediction nomogram based on the recovery of early neurological function needs to be improved. However, the nomogram for the prognosis 3 months after the operation has a very ideal prediction effect, which can well predict the poor prognosis 3 months after the operation. This is also the prognostic outcome that we are more concerned about.
  38 in total

Review 1.  Urokinase Plasminogen Activator: A Potential Thrombolytic Agent for Ischaemic Stroke.

Authors:  Rais Reskiawan A Kadir; Ulvi Bayraktutan
Journal:  Cell Mol Neurobiol       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 5.046

Review 2.  Global Burden of Stroke.

Authors:  Mira Katan; Andreas Luft
Journal:  Semin Neurol       Date:  2018-05-23       Impact factor: 3.420

3.  Baseline Neutrophil Counts and Neutrophil Ratio May Predict a Poor Clinical Outcome in Minor Stroke Patients with intravenous Thrombolysis.

Authors:  Huihui Liu; Ruojun Wang; Jijun Shi; Yanlin Zhang; Zhichao Huang; Shoujiang You; Guodong Xiao; Dapeng Wang; Yongjun Cao
Journal:  J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 2.136

4.  Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction.

Authors:  J Bamford; P Sandercock; M Dennis; J Burn; C Warlow
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-06-22       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  Epidemiology of stroke in Europe and trends for the 21st century.

Authors:  Yannick Béjot; Henri Bailly; Jérôme Durier; Maurice Giroud
Journal:  Presse Med       Date:  2016-11-02       Impact factor: 1.228

Review 6.  Diabetes mellitus, admission glucose, and outcomes after stroke thrombolysis: a registry and systematic review.

Authors:  Jean-Philippe Desilles; Elena Meseguer; Julien Labreuche; Bertrand Lapergue; Gaia Sirimarco; Jaime Gonzalez-Valcarcel; Philippa Lavallée; Lucie Cabrejo; Celine Guidoux; Isabelle Klein; Pierre Amarenco; Mikael Mazighi
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 7.914

7.  Excess stroke in Mexican Americans compared with non-Hispanic Whites: the Brain Attack Surveillance in Corpus Christi Project.

Authors:  Lewis B Morgenstern; Melinda A Smith; Lynda D Lisabeth; Jan M H Risser; Ken Uchino; Nelda Garcia; Paxton J Longwell; David A McFarling; Olubumi Akuwumi; Areej Al-Wabil; Fahmi Al-Senani; Devin L Brown; Lemuel A Moyé
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2004-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Decision curve analysis revisited: overall net benefit, relationships to ROC curve analysis, and application to case-control studies.

Authors:  Valentin Rousson; Thomas Zumbrunn
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2011-06-22       Impact factor: 2.796

9.  Global, Regional, and Country-Specific Lifetime Risks of Stroke, 1990 and 2016.

Authors:  Valery L Feigin; Grant Nguyen; Kelly Cercy; Catherine O Johnson; Tahiya Alam; Priyakumari G Parmar; Amanuel A Abajobir; Kalkidan H Abate; Foad Abd-Allah; Ayenew N Abejie; Gebre Y Abyu; Zanfina Ademi; Gina Agarwal; Muktar B Ahmed; Rufus O Akinyemi; Rajaa Al-Raddadi; Leopold N Aminde; Catherine Amlie-Lefond; Hossein Ansari; Hamid Asayesh; Solomon W Asgedom; Tesfay M Atey; Henok T Ayele; Maciej Banach; Amitava Banerjee; Aleksandra Barac; Suzanne L Barker-Collo; Till Bärnighausen; Lars Barregard; Sanjay Basu; Neeraj Bedi; Masoud Behzadifar; Yannick Béjot; Derrick A Bennett; Isabela M Bensenor; Derbew F Berhe; Dube J Boneya; Michael Brainin; Ismael R Campos-Nonato; Valeria Caso; Carlos A Castañeda-Orjuela; Jacquelin C Rivas; Ferrán Catalá-López; Hanne Christensen; Michael H Criqui; Albertino Damasceno; Lalit Dandona; Rakhi Dandona; Kairat Davletov; Barbora de Courten; Gabrielle deVeber; Klara Dokova; Dumessa Edessa; Matthias Endres; Emerito J A Faraon; Maryam S Farvid; Florian Fischer; Kyle Foreman; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Seana L Gall; Tsegaye T Gebrehiwot; Johanna M Geleijnse; Richard F Gillum; Maurice Giroud; Alessandra C Goulart; Rahul Gupta; Rajeev Gupta; Vladimir Hachinski; Randah R Hamadeh; Graeme J Hankey; Habtamu A Hareri; Rasmus Havmoeller; Simon I Hay; Mohamed I Hegazy; Desalegn T Hibstu; Spencer L James; Panniyammakal Jeemon; Denny John; Jost B Jonas; Jacek Jóźwiak; Rizwan Kalani; Amit Kandel; Amir Kasaeian; Andre P Kengne; Yousef S Khader; Abdur R Khan; Young-Ho Khang; Jagdish Khubchandani; Daniel Kim; Yun J Kim; Mika Kivimaki; Yoshihiro Kokubo; Dhaval Kolte; Jacek A Kopec; Soewarta Kosen; Michael Kravchenko; Rita Krishnamurthi; G Anil Kumar; Alessandra Lafranconi; Pablo M Lavados; Yirga Legesse; Yongmei Li; Xiaofeng Liang; Warren D Lo; Stefan Lorkowski; Paulo A Lotufo; Clement T Loy; Mark T Mackay; Hassan Magdy Abd El Razek; Mahdi Mahdavi; Azeem Majeed; Reza Malekzadeh; Deborah C Malta; Abdullah A Mamun; Lorenzo G Mantovani; Sheila C O Martins; Kedar K Mate; Mohsen Mazidi; Suresh Mehata; Toni Meier; Yohannes A Melaku; Walter Mendoza; George A Mensah; Atte Meretoja; Haftay B Mezgebe; Tomasz Miazgowski; Ted R Miller; Norlinah M Ibrahim; Shafiu Mohammed; Ali H Mokdad; Mahmood Moosazadeh; Andrew E Moran; Kamarul I Musa; Ruxandra I Negoi; Minh Nguyen; Quyen L Nguyen; Trang H Nguyen; Tung T Tran; Thanh T Nguyen; Dina Nur Anggraini Ningrum; Bo Norrving; Jean J Noubiap; Martin J O’Donnell; Andrew T Olagunju; Oyere K Onuma; Mayowa O Owolabi; Mahboubeh Parsaeian; George C Patton; Michael Piradov; Martin A Pletcher; Farshad Pourmalek; V Prakash; Mostafa Qorbani; Mahfuzar Rahman; Muhammad A Rahman; Rajesh K Rai; Annemarei Ranta; David Rawaf; Salman Rawaf; Andre MN Renzaho; Stephen R Robinson; Ramesh Sahathevan; Amirhossein Sahebkar; Joshua A Salomon; Paola Santalucia; Itamar S Santos; Benn Sartorius; Aletta E Schutte; Sadaf G Sepanlou; Azadeh Shafieesabet; Masood A Shaikh; Morteza Shamsizadeh; Kevin N Sheth; Mekonnen Sisay; Min-Jeong Shin; Ivy Shiue; Diego A S Silva; Eugene Sobngwi; Michael Soljak; Reed J D Sorensen; Luciano A Sposato; Saverio Stranges; Rizwan A Suliankatchi; Rafael Tabarés-Seisdedos; David Tanne; Cuong Tat Nguyen; J S Thakur; Amanda G Thrift; David L Tirschwell; Roman Topor-Madry; Bach X Tran; Luong T Nguyen; Thomas Truelsen; Nikolaos Tsilimparis; Stefanos Tyrovolas; Kingsley N Ukwaja; Olalekan A Uthman; Yuri Varakin; Tommi Vasankari; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Vasiliy V Vlassov; Wenzhi Wang; Andrea Werdecker; Charles D A Wolfe; Gelin Xu; Yuichiro Yano; Naohiro Yonemoto; Chuanhua Yu; Zoubida Zaidi; Maysaa El Sayed Zaki; Maigeng Zhou; Boback Ziaeian; Ben Zipkin; Theo Vos; Mohsen Naghavi; Christopher J L Murray; Gregory A Roth
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Stroke in the 21st Century: A Snapshot of the Burden, Epidemiology, and Quality of Life.

Authors:  Eric S Donkor
Journal:  Stroke Res Treat       Date:  2018-11-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.