Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 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.

Wednesday, May 12, 2021

d-dimer Level as a Predictor of Recurrent Stroke in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source

 Unless you have followup research that will reduce that risk to zero, there is nothing useful here for survivors.

d-dimer Level as a Predictor of Recurrent Stroke in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source
Originally publishedhttps://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.033217Stroke. ;0:STROKEAHA.120.033217

Background and Purpose:

This study aimed to investigate the value of d-dimer levels in predicting recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source. We also evaluated the underlying causes of recurrent stroke according to d-dimer levels.

Methods:

A total of 1431 patients with undetermined source were enrolled in this study and divided into quartiles according to their baseline plasma d-dimer levels. The primary outcome measure was the occurrence of recurrent stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) in the year following the stroke event.

Results:

The risk of recurrent stroke increased significantly with the increasing d-dimer quartile (log-rank P=0.001). Patients in the higher d-dimer quartiles had a higher probability of recurrent embolic stroke because of covert atrial fibrillation, hidden malignancy, or undetermined sources. Most recurrent strokes in Q3 and Q4 were embolic but not in Q1 or Q2. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients in Q3 and Q4 had a significantly increased risk of recurrent stroke compared with those in Q1 (hazard ratio, 3.12 [95% CI, 1.07−9.07], P=0.036; hazard ratio, 7.29 [95% CI, 2.59−20.52], P<0.001, respectively; Ptrend<0.001). Binary analyses showed a significant association between a high d-dimer level above normal range and the risk of recurrent stroke (hazard ratio, 2.48 [95% CI, 1.31−4.70], P=0.005). In subgroup analyses, a high d-dimer level was associated with a significantly higher risk of recurrent stroke in men than in women (P=0.039).

Conclusions:

Our findings suggest that d-dimer levels can be a useful risk assessment biomarker for predicting recurrent stroke, especially embolic ischemic stroke, in patients with undetermined source.

 

No comments:

Post a Comment