4.6 Article

Aortic stiffness and plasma brain natriuretic peptide predicts mortality in acute ischemic stroke

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 679-685

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/ijs.12049

关键词

acute ischemic stroke; aortic stiffness; brain natriuretic peptide; transthoracic echocardiography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe study aimed to evaluate the prognostic role and discriminative power of aortic stiffness and plasma brain natriuretic peptide levels in a cohort of patients hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke. Methods and ResultsThree hundred and ten consecutive patients aged 50 years and older with a first episode of acute ischemic stroke were prospectively evaluated. All patients were admitted to the hospital within 24h of the onset of stroke symptoms. The type of acute ischemic stroke was classified according to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment classification. Blood samples were taken for measurement of brain natriuretic peptide levels at admission. Aortic stiffness indices, aortic strain and distensibility, were calculated from the aortic diameters measured by transthoracic echocardiography. The patients were followed for one-year or until death, whichever came first. Death occurred in 51 (165%) patients. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score >13, diabetes, brain natriuretic peptide >235pg/mL, aortic distensibility, and aortic strain were associated with all-cause mortality. The optimal cutoff level of brain natriuretic peptide to distinguish the deceased group from the survival group was 235pg/mL (sensitivity 710% and specificity 630%) and to distinguish cardioembolic stroke from noncardioembolic stroke was 155pg/mL (sensitivity 81% and specificity 63%). ConclusionsAortic stiffness and brain natriuretic peptide predict mortality in patients with first-ever acute ischemic stroke. Brain natriuretic peptide also differentiates cardioembolic stroke from noncardioembolic 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

4.6
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