4.7 Article

Copeptin and NT-proBNP for prediction of all-cause and cardiovascular death in ischemic stroke

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 88, 期 20, 页码 1899-1905

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003937

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [8167021239]
  2. Science and Technology Project of Shandong Province [2011GSF11829]
  3. Natural Fund of Shandong Province [ZR2013HM039]
  4. Technology Ministry of Science and Technology Support Program [2015BAI06B05]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate long-term mortality in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) by exploring the correlation between death and plasma concentrations of copeptin and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in a cohort study. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter observational study of 4,215 patients with AIS, copeptin and NT-proBNP levels were measured with a standardized method when patients were admitted to hospital. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality or cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality within 1 year. Results: During a follow-up period, 906 patients (20.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 18.9-21.2) died, including 589 cases of CVD mortality (13.1%, 95% CI 12.1-14.0). With the use of a multivariate analysis, both markers were found to have prognostic value in the same model (CVD mortality: odds ratio [OR] for fourth quartile of copeptin and NT-proBNP 1.68 and 2.58, 95% CI 1.22-2.49 and 1.76-4.05, respectively; all-cause mortality: OR for fourth quartile of copeptin and NT-proBNP 1.48 and 2.47, 95% CI 1.22-2.03 and 1.68-3.95, respectively). In a receiver operating characteristics analysis of CVD mortality, the area under the curve varied from 0.80 to 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) when the index of NT-proBNP was added and increased to 0.86 (95% CI 0.83-0.90) when both markers were added. Conclusions: Copeptin and NT-proBNP may be useful independent prognostic markers of allcause or CVD mortality in Chinese patients with AIS.

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