4.7 Article

Renal impairment on clinical outcomes following endovascular recanalization

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 94, 期 5, 页码 E464-E473

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000008748

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation of China [81701184, 81701229, 81671170, 81601036, 81530038]
  2. National key research and development program of China [2017YFC1307900, 2017YFC1307901]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectiveTo determine the influence of renal impairment (RI) on clinical outcomes at 3 months and the risk of recurrent stroke in patients presenting with emergent large vessel occlusion (ELVO) treated with emergent endovascular treatment (EVT).MethodsConsecutive patients with anterior circulation stroke due to ELVO treated with EVT in 21 endovascular centers were included. Multivariate regressions were used to evaluate the association of RI with mortality, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score 0-2), and functional improvement (shift in mRS score) at 3 months. The association between RI and the risk of recurrent stroke was evaluated with multivariate competing-risk regression analyses.ResultsA total of 628 patients with ELVO (mean age 64.7 12.5 years, median NIH Stroke Scale score 17 points, 99 [15.8%] with RI) who underwent EVT were enrolled. After adjustment for other relevant variables, multivariate regression analysis indicated that RI was independently associated with functional independence (adjusted odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.96, p = 0.035) at 3 months but not with mortality or functional improvement. Multivariate competing-risk regression analysis showed that patients with RI who received EVT had a significantly higher risk of recurrent stroke (adjusted hazard ratio 2.56, 95% CI 1.27-5.18, p = 0.009) compared to those with normal renal function.ConclusionOur results suggest that RI is an independent predictor of functional independence at 3 months and long-term risk of recurrent stroke in patients with ELVO treated with EVT.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据