4.7 Article

Serum LRG1 as a novel biomarker for cardioembolic stroke

期刊

CLINICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 519, 期 -, 页码 83-91

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2021.04.002

关键词

LRG1; Cardioembolic stroke; Severity; Prognosis; BNP; LAD

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81971111, 81771259]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

LRG1 was found to be a promising indicator for predicting cardioembolic stroke, with independent risk factors and comparable predictive performance to BNP and LAD. The combined predictive model including LRG1, BNP, and LAD greatly improved the prediction effect. Additionally, a positive correlation between LRG1 levels and stroke severity in the CE group was observed, suggesting its potential for predicting stroke outcomes.
Background: In recent years, LRG1 was found to be closely related to atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and myocardial remodeling after myocardial infarction. While its role in cerebral infarction was still controversial. We aimed to explore the value of LRG1 to identify the cardioembolic stroke. Methods: 283 acute ischemic stroke(AIS) patients and 169 controls were enrolled. The AIS patients were divided into a CE(cardiogenic embolism) group and a non-CE group. Serum LRG1 levels were quantified by ELISA. Results: The serum LRG1 levels were decreased in the AIS patients. CE group had higher serum LRG1 levels than the non-CE group. LRG1 was an independent risk factor for cardioembolic stroke. The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.768 with a sensitivity of 72.5% and specificity of 69.5%, which was not second to BNP and LAD. The combined predictive model we designed, including LRG1, BNP, and LAD, greatly improved the prediction effect. A positive correlation was shown between LRG1 and stroke severity in the CE group. Those who experienced poor outcomes had higher serum LRG1 levels compared with good ones. Conclusion: Serum LRG1 was a promising indicator to predict cardioembolic stroke, as well as stroke severity and the 3-month prognosis of it.

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