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, June 29, 2022

Validation and comparison of multiple risk scores for prediction of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after intravenous thrombolysis in VISTA

So you described a problem but did no searching for solutions to that problem. Incomplete work, and your mentors and senior researchers allowed you to hand in incomplete work? All of you need to be fired. 

Validation and comparison of multiple risk scores for prediction of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage after intravenous thrombolysis in VISTA

First Published May 30, 2022 Research Article 

Background and Aims 

Prediction models/scores may help to identify patients at high risk of symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) after intravenous thrombolysis. We aimed to validate and compare the performance of different prediction models for sICH after thrombolysis using direct model estimation in the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA).

Methods 

We searched PubMed for potentially eligible prediction models from inception to June 1, 2019. Simple and practical models/scores were validated in VISTA. The primary outcome was sICH based on two criteria (National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, NINDS; Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study, SITS-MOST) and the secondary outcome was parenchymal hematoma (PH). The discrimination performance of each model was evaluated using area under the curve (AUC) and calibration.

Results 

We found 13 prediction models and five models (HAT, MSS, SPAN-100, GRASPS and THRIVE) were finally validated in VISTA. A total of 1884 participants were eligible for our study, of whom the proportion with sICH was 4.6% (87/1884) per NINDS and 3.9% (73/1884) per SITS-MOST, and with PH was 11.3% (213/1884). MSS and GRASPS had the greatest predictive ability for sICH (NINDS criteria: MSS AUC 0.7 95%CI 0.63-0.77, P<0.001; GRASPS AUC 0.69 95%CI 0.63-0.76, P<0.001; SITS-MOST criteria: MSS, AUC 0.76 95%CI 0.68-0.85, P<0.001; GRASPS, AUC 0.79 95%CI 0.71-0.87, P<0.001). Similar results were found for PH (MSS AUC 0.68 95%CI 0.64-0.73, P=0.017; GRASPS AUC 0.68 95%CI 0.63-0.72, P=0.017). The calibration of each model was almost good.

Conclusion 

MSS and GRASPS had good disclination and calibration for sICH and PH after thrombolysis as assessed in VISTA. These two models could be used in clinical practice and clinical trials to identity individuals with high risk of sICH.

No comments:

Post a Comment