4.2 Article

Retrospective Analysis of Argatroban in 353 Patients with Acute Noncardioembolic Stroke

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 27, 期 8, 页码 2175-2181

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2018.03.016

关键词

Argatroban; ozagrel; edaravone; noncardioembolic stroke; atherothrombotic infarction; lacunar infarction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Argatroban is a thrombin inhibitor agent for acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke in Japan. We studied the prognosis in patients with acute stroke treated by argatroban in comparison with the control group with ozagrel in our hospital Subjects and Methods: A total of 513 patients with acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke were enrolled retrospectively from our hospital database. Of all patients with stroke, 353 were administered with argatroban. The other 160 control patients were administered with ozagrel. The patients were examined as to their stroke types, the neurological severity according to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and clinical outcomes on discharge were determined according to the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). Results: A total of 353 patients with acute noncardioembolic stroke, including 138 with lacunar infarction (LIs) and 215 with atherothrombotic infarction (ATI) showed functional recovery by argatroban, but the effectiveness of argatroban was not superior to ozagrel therapy defined by the control group. A total of 255 patients with ATI who were treated with both argatroban and ozagrel showed improvement by 1 point. We could not find any significant difference between argatroban and ozagrel in the 2 stroke subtypes, LI and ATI. We also found that combination therapy of argatroban and edaravone was not superior to argatroban monotherapy in clinical outcome. Conclusions: Argatroban therapy was not superior to control with ozagrel therapy in acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, including LI and ATI, regardless of the use of edaravone.

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