4.4 Article

Outcomes in Severe Middle Cerebral Artery Ischemic Stroke

期刊

NEUROCRITICAL CARE
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 20-26

出版社

HUMANA PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12028-013-9838-x

关键词

Brain edema; Intracranial pressure; Stroke; Tracheostomy; Gastrostomy; Decompressive craniectomy

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R01 HL082517] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINDS NIH HHS [R01 NS061808] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Severe middle cerebral artery stroke (MCA) is associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. We assessed the hypothesis that patient-specific variables may be associated with outcomes. We also sought to describe under-recognized patient-centered outcomes. A consecutive, multi-institution, retrospective cohort of adult patients (a parts per thousand currency sign70 years) was established from 2009 to 2011. We included patients with NIHSS score a parts per thousand yen15 and infarct volume a parts per thousand yen60 mL measured within 48 h of symptom onset. Malignant edema was defined as the development of midline brain shift of a parts per thousand yen5 mm in the first 5 days. Exclusion criterion was enrollment in any experimental trial. A univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to model and predict the factors related to outcomes. 46 patients (29 female, 17 male; mean age 57.3 +/- A 1.5 years) met study criteria. The mortality rate was 28 % (n = 13). In a multivariate analysis, only concurrent anterior cerebral artery (ACA) involvement was associated with mortality (OR 9.78, 95 % CI 1.15, 82.8, p = 0.04). In the malignant edema subgroup (n = 23, 58 %), 4 died (17 %), 7 underwent decompressive craniectomy (30 %), 7 underwent tracheostomy (30 %), and 15 underwent gastrostomy (65 %). Adverse outcomes after severe stroke are common. Concurrent ACA involvement predicts mortality in severe MCA stroke. It is useful to understand the incidence of life-sustaining procedures, such as tracheostomy and gastrostomy, as well as factors that contribute to their necessity.

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

4.4
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