4.6 Review

Case Characteristics, Hyperacute Treatment, and Outcome information from the Clinical Research Center for Stroke-Fifth Division Registry in South Korea

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 38-53

出版社

KOREAN STROKE SOC
DOI: 10.5853/jos.2015.17.1.38

关键词

Stroke registry; South Korea; Case profile; Hyperacute treatment; Thrombolysis; Outcome; Recurrent event

资金

  1. Korea Healthcare Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health, Republic of Korea [HI10C2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characteristics of stroke cases, acute stroke care, and outcomes after stroke differ according to geographical and cultural background. To provide epidemiological and clinical data on stroke care in South Korea, we analyzed a prospective multicenter clinical stroke registry, the Clinical Research Center for Stroke-Fifth Division (CRCS-5). Patients were 58% male with a mean age of 67.2 +/- 12.9 years and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 3 [1-8] points. Over the 6 years of operation, temporal trends were documented including increasing utilization of recanalization treatment with shorter onset-to-arrival delay and decremental length of stay. Acute recanalization treatment was performed in 12.7% of cases with endovascular treatment utilized in 36%, but the proportion of endovascular recanalization varied across centers. Door-to-IV alteplase delay had a median of 45 [33-68] min. The rate of symptomatic hemorrhagic transformation (HT) was 7%, and that of any HT was 27% among recanalization-treated cases. Early neurological deterioration occurred in 15% of cases and were associated with longer length of stay and poorer 3-month out-comes. The proportion of mRS scores of 0-1 was 42% on discharge, 50% at 3 months, and 55% at 1 year after the index stroke. Recurrent stroke up to 1 year occurred in 4.5% of patients; the rate was higher among older individuals and those with neurologically severe deficits. The above findings will be compared with other Asian and US registry data in this article.

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