4.2 Article

Platelet volume indices for the prognosis of acute ischemic stroke patients with intravenous thrombolysis

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 129, Issue 4, Pages 344-349

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2018.1536054

Keywords

Platelet volume indices; acute ischemic stroke; intravenous thrombolysis; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Wenzhou Municipal Scientific and Technological Program Projects [Y20170261]
  2. Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China [LQ15H090008, LY13H090010]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We aimed to investigate whether platelet volume indices (PVIs) were associated with an unfavorable clinical outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients undergoing intravenous thrombolysis (IVT). Methods: We defined a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 3-6 at 90 days as an unfavorable outcome. Logistic regression analysis was performed to find out whether mean platelet volume (MPV), platelet distribution width (PDW), MPV/platelet count (PC) ratio and PDW/PC ratio were associated with poor prognosis. A Spearman correlation test was carried out to assess the relationship between variables. Results: Overall, 183 patients were included in this study. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that MPV (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-2.29, p = 0.044) and PDW-sd (adjusted OR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06-1.59, p = 0.011) were independent predictors of the poor outcome. There was a trend of incremental OR when compared higher tertile of MPV with lower ones (second tertile, adjusted OR 2.52,95% CI:1.02-6.21, p = 0.045(sic) third tertile, adjusted OR 2.61, 95% CI: 1.12-6.09, p = 0.027). Besides, we found a significant positive correlation between MPV and PDW-sd (or =0.874, p < 0.001). Conclusion: MPV and PDW-sd were independent predictors for 90-day outcomes in stroke patients receiving thrombolysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available