4.7 Article

Admission International Normalized Ratio and Acute Infarct Volume in Ischemic Stroke

期刊

ANNALS OF NEUROLOGY
卷 64, 期 5, 页码 499-506

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ana.21456

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke) [R01-NS038477, R01NS051412, P50-NS051343]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The level of anticoagulation at the time of stroke onset may influence the size, composition, and dissolution rate of the occlusive clot. We explored the relation between admission international normalized ratio (INR) and acute infarct volume in patients with ischemic stroke. Methods: We studied 93 consecutive patients with preadmission warfarin use who had INR measurement and diffusion-weighted imaging performed within 24 hours of stroke onset. Ninety-three etiologic stroke subtype-matched patients without prior warfarin use served as control patients. Linear regression analysis was used to test for independence of INR as a predictor of infarct volume. Results: In patients with preadmission warfarin use, admission INR was inversely correlated with lesion volume oil diffusion-weighted imaging (r = -0-38). This relation was retained after adjustment for potential covariates (p = 0.014). INR less than 2.0 was associated with 3.5-fold (95% confidence interval, 2.9-4.2) greater lesion volume on diffusion-weighted imaging as compared with INR of 2.0 or more. Patients who were on therapeutic INR ( :2.0) had smaller infarcts compared with patients without preadmission warfarin use (p = 0.001). Admission INR was inversely correlated with acute perfusion defect (r = -0.33), chronic infarct volume (r = -0.42), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score at admission (r = -0.27), and modified Rankin score at discharge (r = -0.28). Interpretation: These results suggest that preadmission warfarin use associated with therapeutic level of anticoagulation can offer a benefit in limiting the extent of ischemic injury in an event of acute stroke.

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