4.2 Article

Association of High-sensitivity C-reactive Protein with Patient Prognosis Following Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Ischemic Stroke

期刊

CURRENT NEUROVASCULAR RESEARCH
卷 17, 期 4, 页码 402-410

出版社

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1567202617666200517110949

关键词

C-reactive protein; cerebral hemorrhage; inflammation; ischemic stroke; prognosis; thrombectomy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The aim of this investigation was to examine the association of hsCRP (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) with outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO) after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Methods: A total of 404 patients were enrolled, and outcomes included unfavorable clinical outcome at three months (modified Rankin Scale, mRS scores 3-6), the occurrence of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICII) and hemorrhagic transformation (HT) of the infarct. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to identify the cutoff value of hsCRP to discriminate between favorable and unfavorable outcomes. The association of hsCRP with outcomes was evaluated using a logistic regression model. Results: The best cutoff value of hsCRP to distinguish between favorable and unfavorable outcomes at three months was identified as 3.0 mg/L (area under the curve, [AUC] 0.641, 95% confidence interval, [CI] 0.535-0.748; P = 0.014). In, multivariate analysis, patients with hsCRP >= 3 mg/L had more unfavorable outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% CI 1.42-2.02; P = 0.010), sICH (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.62-3.66; P = 0.004), and HT of infarct (OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.42-2.02; P = 0.008) compared to those with hsCRP <1 mg/L. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that patients with higher CRP levels had more unfavorable outcome, and exhibited higher sICH, and HT of infarct than those with lower CRP levels. Elevated hsCRP level, especially when higher than 3 mg/L, is an independent predictor for poor clinical prognosis in patients with MT for LVO.

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

4.2
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