Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.
What this blog is for:
My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html
Wednesday, July 11, 2018
Efficacy of Endovascular Therapy in Acute Ischemic Stroke Depends on Age and Clinical Severity
If you're not getting 100% recovery from this then you need to go back to the drawing board. 100% recovery is the only goal. Fuck off if you are using the tyranny of low expectations to justify anything less.
Background and Purpose—Efficacy of endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke because of large vessel occlusion may depend on patients’ age and stroke severity; we, therefore, developed a prognosis score based on these variables and examined whether EVT efficacy differs between patients with good, intermediate, or poor prognostic score.
Methods—A total of 4079 patients with an acute ischemic stroke were identified from the Paris Stroke Consortium registry. We developed the stroke checkerboard (SC) score (SC score=1 point per decade ≥50 years of age and 2 points per 5 points on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale) to predict spontaneous outcome. The primary outcome was the adjusted common odds ratio for an improvement in the modified Rankin Scale at 90 days after EVT, in patients with low, intermediate, or high SC scores. To rule out potential selection biases, a nested case-control analysis, with individual matching for all major prognostic factors, was also performed, to compare patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation treated or not with EVT.
Results—In patients untreated with EVT, SC scores <8 were predictive of good outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score, 0–2; area under the curve, 0.87), whereas SC scores gt;12 were predictive of poor outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score, 4–6; area under the curve, 0.88). In the overall population, there was an interaction between EVT and prognosis group (P<0.001). EVT was associated with improved outcome in patients with SC scores gt;12 (common odds ratio, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.13–2.56) and SC scores 8 to 12 (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.11–1.69) but not in patients with SC scores lt;8 (odds ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.93). Similar results were obtained in the case-control analysis among 449 patients treated with EVT and 449 matched patients untreated with EVT.
Conclusions—In patients stratified with the SC score, EVT was associated with improved functional outcome in older and more severe patients but not in younger and less severe patients.(Improved is not good enough, full recovery is the expected goal. GET THERE!)