4.7 Article

Prognostic value of central blood pressure on the outcomes of embolic stroke of undetermined source

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-36151-y

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We investigated the prognostic impact of central blood pressure (BP) on outcomes in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), and evaluated the prognostic value of central BP according to ESUS subtype. Over a median of 45.8 months, 746 patients with ESUS were enrolled and followed up. Our findings showed that central BP can predict poor long-term prognosis in ESUS patients, especially those with the no cause ESUS subtype.
We investigated the prognostic impact of central blood pressure (BP) on outcomes in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). The prognostic value of central BP according to ESUS subtype was also evaluated. We recruited patients with ESUS and data on their central BP parameters (central systolic BP [SBP], central diastolic BP [DBP], central pulse pressure [PP], augmentation pressure [AP], and augmentation index [AIx]) during admission. ESUS subtype classification was arteriogenic embolism, minor cardioembolism, two or more causes, and no cause. Major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) was defined as recurrent stroke, acute coronary syndrome, hospitalization for heart failure, or death. Over a median of 45.8 months, 746 patients with ESUS were enrolled and followed up. Patients had a mean age of 62.8 years, and 62.2% were male. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that central SBP and PP were associated with MACE. All-cause mortality was independently associated with AIx. In patients with no cause ESUS, central SBP and PP, AP, and AIx were independently associated with MACE. AP and AIx were independently associated with all-cause mortality (all p < 0.05). We demonstrated that central BP can predict poor long-term prognosis in patients with ESUS, especially those with the no cause ESUS subtype.

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