4.7 Article

A Nomogram for Predicting Stroke Recurrence Among Young Adults

Journal

STROKE
Volume 51, Issue 6, Pages 1865-1867

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.029740

Keywords

atherosclerosis; calibration; hypertension; nomograms; young adult

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81901248, 81870946, 81530038]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose- This study aimed to develop and validate a nomogram for predicting the risk of stroke recurrence among young adults after ischemic stroke. Methods- Patients aged between 18 and 49 years with first-ever ischemic stroke were selected from the Nanjing Stroke Registry Program. A stepwise Cox proportional hazards regression model was employed to develop the best-fit nomogram. The discrimination and calibration in the training and validation cohorts were used to evaluate the nomogram. All patients were classified into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups based on the risk scores generated from the nomogram. Results- A total of 604 patients were enrolled in this study. Hypertension (hazard ratio [HR], 2.038 [95% CI, 1.504-3.942]; P=0.034), diabetes mellitus (HR, 3.224 [95% CI, 1.848-5.624]; P<0.001), smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers; HR, 2.491 [95% CI, 1.304-4.759]; P=0.006), and stroke cause (small-vessel occlusion versus large-artery atherosclerosis; HR, 0.325 [95% CI, 0.109-0.976]; P=0.045) were associated with recurrent stroke. Educational years (>12 versus 0-6; HR, 0.070 [95% CI, 0.015-0.319]; P=0.001) were inversely correlated with recurrent stroke. The nomogram was composed of these factors, and successfully stratified patients into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups (P<0.001). Conclusions- The nomogram composed of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking status, stroke cause, and education years may predict the risk of stroke recurrence among young adults after ischemic stroke.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available