Early Temperature Rise Within First 24 Hours of Stroke Onset Predicts Poor Outcomes

 Predicting failure to recover IS STUPIDER THAN HELL! Deliver recovery you blithering idiots!

Send me personal hate mail on this: oc1dean@gmail.com. I'll print your complete statement with your name and title(If you can't stand by your name don't bother replying anonymously) and my response in my blog. Or are you afraid to engage with my stroke-addled mind? No excuses are allowed! You're medically trained; it should be simple to precisely state EXACTLY WHERE I'M WRONG.

Exactly what in this research gets survivors recovered? 100% recovery is the only goal in stroke; NOT PREDICTIONS, BIOMARKERS, PROGNOSTICATION, OR ASSESSMENTS! I'd fire anyone doing these!

Early Temperature Rise Within First 24 Hours of Stroke Onset Predicts Poor Outcomes

TOPLINE

An increase in body temperature within the first 24 hours of stroke onset was significantly associated with higher odds of poor functional outcomes at 3 months in patients with ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes.

METHODOLOGY

• Using data from a prospective Spanish stroke registry, researchers conducted a retrospective study to assess how body temperature at admission, the maximum temperature within the first 24 hours, and temperature fluctuations affect functional outcomes at 3 months after stroke.
• They included 5883 patients with stroke (mean age, 69.5 years; 44.5% women), comprising 4830 with ischaemic stroke and 1053 with haemorrhagic stroke, between 2008 and 2018.
• To capture potential dynamic fluctuations, four temperature variables were evaluated: the temperature at admission, the maximum temperature within the first 24 hours, the difference between the maximum temperature and the temperature at admission, and the change in temperature during the first 24 hours.
• Patients with a temperature of at least 37.5 °C upon admission or within the first 24 hours received oral paracetamol or intravenous metamizole every 8 hours until normothermia was achieved.
• Functional stroke outcomes at 3 months were assessed using the modified Rankin scale (mRS), with good outcome defined as an mRS score of 2 or less and poor outcome defined as an mRS score of greater than 2.

TAKEAWAY

• Temperature at admission did not predict the 3‑month functional outcomes after stroke.
• The maximum temperature within the first 24 hours was associated with approximately fourfold increased odds of poor 3-month functional outcomes in ischaemic stroke (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.68) and nearly threefold higher odds in haemorrhagic stroke (aOR, 2.96; P < .001 for both).
• The early rise in temperature within the first 24 hours was significantly associated with approximately 10-fold and 17-fold increased odds of 3-month poor functional outcomes in ischaemic and haemorrhagic strokes, respectively (P < .001 for both).
• Among treated patients, a temperature rise of at least 0 °C during the first 24 hours predicted poor outcomes, with a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 84% in those with ischaemic stroke and a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 71% in those with haemorrhagic stroke.

IN PRACTICE

"Monitoring temperature changes, specifically the rise in body temperature during the first 24 h after stroke onset, provides the most robust indicator for initiating antihyperthermic therapy. Targeting patients who exhibit a temperature increase over this period, rather than relying on a single admission measurement, may optimize treatment efficacy and improve functional outcomes," the authors wrote.

SOURCE

This study was led by Crhistian-Mario Oblitas, Neuroimaging and Biotechnology Laboratory, Clinical Neurosciences Research Laboratory, Health Research Institute of Santiago de Compostela, Hospital Clínico Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Spain. It was published online on June 19, 2026, in the Journal of Clinical Medicine.

LIMITATIONS

The study relied on data from a prospective registry that was not specifically designed to assess temperature metrics. Detailed longitudinal analyses of temperature changes could not be performed due to methodological limitations. Although data on the infectious source of fever were taken into account in the analysis, data on the severity of infections and the spectrum of antimicrobial therapies were lacking, which may have introduced bias.

DISCLOSURES

This study received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Xunta de Galicia, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and CIBERNED. The authors declared having no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.