Piers Klein1, Liqi Shu2, Thanh N Nguyen1, James E Siegler3, Setareh Salehi Omran4, Alexis N Simpkins5, Mirjam Heldner6, Adam de Havenon7, Hugo J Aparicio1, Mohamad Abdalkader1, Marios Psychogios8, Maria Cristina Vedovati9, Maurizio Paciaroni10, Rascha von Martial6, David S Liebeskind11, Diana Aguiar de Sousa12, Jonathan M Coutinho13, Shadi Yaghi2. 1. Department of Neurology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Department of Neurology, Cooper Neurological Institute, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 6. Department of Neurology, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 7. Department of Neurology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 8. Department of Neuroradiology, Clinic of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 9. Department of Medicine and Surgery, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 10. Neurology-Stroke Unit, IRCCS MultiMedica, Milano, Italy. 11. Department of Neurology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 12. Department of Neurosciences and Mental Health, Neurology Service, Hospital de Santa Maria/CHULN, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 13. Department of Neurology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We identified risk factors, derived and validated a prognostic score for poor neurological outcome and death for use in cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). METHODS: We performed an international multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients with CVT from January 2015 to December 2020. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine risk factors for poor outcome, mRS 3-6. A prognostic score was derived and validated. RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients were analyzed with median 375 days (interquartile range [IQR], 180 to 747) of follow-up. The median age was 44 (IQR, 32 to 58) and 62.7% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed the following factors were associated with poor outcome at 90- day follow-up: active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 11.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.62 to 27.14; P<0.001), age (OR, 1.02 per year; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04; P=0.039), Black race (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.27; P=0.025), encephalopathy or coma on presentation (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.39 to 5.30; P=0.004), decreased hemoglobin (OR, 1.16 per g/dL; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.014), higher NIHSS on presentation (OR, 1.07 per point; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.11; P=0.002), and substance use (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.71; P=0.017). The derived IN-REvASC score outperformed ISCVT-RS for the prediction of poor outcome at 90-day follow-up (area under the curve [AUC], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.87] vs. AUC, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76], χ2 P<0.001) and mortality (AUC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90] vs. AUC, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79], χ2 P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Seven factors were associated with poor neurological outcome following CVT. The INREvASC score increased prognostic accuracy compared to ISCVT-RS. Determining patients at highest risk of poor outcome in CVT could help in clinical decision making and identify patients for targeted therapy in future clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: We identified risk factors, derived and validated a prognostic score for poor neurological outcome and death for use in cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). METHODS: We performed an international multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients with CVT from January 2015 to December 2020. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine risk factors for poor outcome, mRS 3-6. A prognostic score was derived and validated. RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients were analyzed with median 375 days (interquartile range [IQR], 180 to 747) of follow-up. The median age was 44 (IQR, 32 to 58) and 62.7% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed the following factors were associated with poor outcome at 90- day follow-up: active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 11.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.62 to 27.14; P<0.001), age (OR, 1.02 per year; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04; P=0.039), Black race (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.27; P=0.025), encephalopathy or coma on presentation (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.39 to 5.30; P=0.004), decreased hemoglobin (OR, 1.16 per g/dL; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.014), higher NIHSS on presentation (OR, 1.07 per point; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.11; P=0.002), and substance use (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.71; P=0.017). The derived IN-REvASC score outperformed ISCVT-RS for the prediction of poor outcome at 90-day follow-up (area under the curve [AUC], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.87] vs. AUC, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76], χ2 P<0.001) and mortality (AUC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90] vs. AUC, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79], χ2 P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Seven factors were associated with poor neurological outcome following CVT. The INREvASC score increased prognostic accuracy compared to ISCVT-RS. Determining patients at highest risk of poor outcome in CVT could help in clinical decision making and identify patients for targeted therapy in future clinical trials.
Authors: James F Burke; Vicki A Freedman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Devin L Brown; Adrianne Haggins; Lesli E Skolarus Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: José L Ruiz-Sandoval; Erwin Chiquete; L Jacqueline Bañuelos-Becerra; Carolina Torres-Anguiano; Christian González-Padilla; Antonio Arauz; Carolina León-Jiménez; Luis M Murillo-Bonilla; Jorge Villarreal-Careaga; Fernando Barinagarrementería; Carlos Cantú-Brito Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2011-03-02 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Clifford J Eskey; Philip M Meyers; Thanh N Nguyen; Sameer A Ansari; Mahesh Jayaraman; Cameron G McDougall; J Kevin DeMarco; William A Gray; David C Hess; Randall T Higashida; Dilip K Pandey; Constantino Peña; Hermann C Schumacher Journal: Circulation Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Liqi Shu; Ekaterina Bakradze; Setareh Salehi Omran; James Giles; Jordan Amar; Nils Henninger; Marwa Elnazeir; Ava Liberman; Khadean Moncrieffe; Jenny Rotblat; Richa Sharma; Yee Cheng; Adeel S Zubair; Alexis Simpkins; Grace Li; Justin Kung; Dezaray Perez; Mirjam R Heldner; Adrian Scutelnic; Rascha von Martial; Bernhard Siepen; Aaron Rothstein; Ossama Khazaal; David Do; Sami Al Kasab; Line Abdul Rahman; Eva A Mistry; Deborah Kerrigan; Hayden Lafever; Thanh N Nguyen; Piers Klein; Hugo J Aparicio; Jennifer A Frontera; Lindsey Kuohn; Shashank Agarwal; Christoph Stretz; Narendra Kala; Sleiman ElJamal; Allison Chang; Shawna Cutting; Fransisca Indraswari; Adam de Havenon; Varsha Muddasani; Teddy Wu; Duncan Wilson; Amre Nouh; Daniyal Asad; Abid Qureshi; Justin Moore; Pooja Khatri; Yasmin Aziz; Bryce Casteigne; Muhib Khan; Yao Cheng; Brian Mac Grory; Martin Weiss; Dylan Ryan; Maria Cristina Vedovati; Maurizio Paciaroni; James Siegler; Scott Kamen; Siyuan Yu; Christopher Leon Guerrero; Eugenie Atallah; Gian Marco De Marchis; Alex Brehm; Tolga Dittrich; Marios Psychogios; Ronald Alvarado-Dyer; Tareq Kass-Hout; Shyam Prabhakaran; Tristan Honda; David Liebeskind; Karen Furie; Shadi Yaghi Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: K Koopman; M Uyttenboogaart; P C Vroomen; J van der Meer; J De Keyser; G J Luijckx Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2008-09-26 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Miguel A Barboza; Erwin Chiquete; Antonio Arauz; Marlon Merlos-Benitez; Alejandro Quiroz-Compeán; Fernando Barinagarrementería; Carlos Cantú-Brito Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.003