Scullen Tyler A, Monlezun Dominique J, Siegler James E, George Alexander J, Schwickrath Melissa, El Khoury Ramy, Cho Min Chan, Martin-Schild Sheryl
Stroke Program, Department of Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Los Angeles.
Stroke Program, Department of Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Los Angeles.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2015 May;24(5):993-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.12.024. Epub 2015 Mar 23.
Cryptogenic stroke can be subdivided into 3 distinct categories: stroke of no determined cause (CyNC), stroke due to multiple etiologies (Cy >1), and stroke etiology unclear due to incomplete evaluation. Although these subdivisions may be very different from one another with respect to baseline features and outcomes, they are often reported as a composite group in clinical trials.
Patients treated at our academic institution between July 2008 and June 2013 for acute ischemic stroke were retrospectively assessed in our prospective registry. CyNC and Cy >1 patients were compared to other Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) stroke subtypes and to each other using univariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression. The primary outcome of interest was good functional outcome, defined as a discharge modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2.
Of the 1311 included patients, 260 (19.8%) experienced a CyNC and 49 (3.7%) experienced a Cy >1. Cy >1 classification was associated with history of atrial fibrillation (odds ratio [OR], 3.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-6.12; P = .001). In comparison to other TOAST classifications, CyNC strokes were more likely to have good functional outcome (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.38-2.82; P < .001) after adjusting for baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, admission glucose, age, and intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (IV tPA).
Even after adjusting for higher IV tPA treatment rates, ischemic stroke patients with no identified cause had better outcomes than other TOAST groups. Conversely, patients coded as cryptogenic with more than 1 likely cause represent a different patient subpopulation. These data argue against the consolidation of cryptogenic stroke subcategories in future investigations.
隐源性卒中可细分为3个不同类别:病因未明的卒中(CyNC)、多种病因所致的卒中(Cy>1)以及因评估不完整导致病因不明的卒中。尽管这些细分类型在基线特征和预后方面可能差异很大,但在临床试验中它们常被作为一个综合组进行报告。
对2008年7月至2013年6月期间在我们学术机构接受急性缺血性卒中治疗的患者,在我们的前瞻性登记研究中进行回顾性评估。使用单因素分析和多因素逻辑回归,将CyNC和Cy>1患者与急性卒中治疗中其他奥扎格雷钠试验(TOAST)卒中亚型以及彼此进行比较。感兴趣的主要结局是良好的功能结局,定义为出院时改良Rankin量表评分为0 - 2分。
在1311例纳入患者中,260例(19.8%)经历了CyNC,49例(3.7%)经历了Cy>1。Cy>1分类与房颤病史相关(比值比[OR],3.17;95%置信区间[CI],1.16 - 6.12;P = 0.001)。与其他TOAST分类相比,在调整了基线美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表、入院血糖、年龄和静脉注射组织型纤溶酶原激活剂(IV tPA)后,CyNC卒中更有可能获得良好的功能结局(OR,1.97;95% CI,1.38 - 2.82;P < 0.001)。
即使在调整了较高的IV tPA治疗率后,病因未明的缺血性卒中患者的结局仍优于其他TOAST组。相反,被编码为有多种可能病因的隐源性患者代表了不同的患者亚群。这些数据反对在未来研究中合并隐源性卒中的亚类。