JNNP

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
[Advanced]

J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. Published Online First: 17 April 2008. doi:10.1136/jnnp.2008.145698
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this link to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Add article to my folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Uyttenboogaart, M.
Right arrow Articles by De Keyser, J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Uyttenboogaart, M.
Right arrow Articles by De Keyser, J.

Short reports

Utility of the stroke-thrombolytic predictive instrument

Maarten Uyttenboogaart 1*, Roy E Stewart 1, Patrick C Vroomen 1, Gert-Jan Luijckx 1 and Jacques De Keyser 1

1 University Medical Center Groningen, Netherlands

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: m.uyttenboogaart{at}neuro.umcg.nl.

Accepted 1 April 2008


*  Abstract

Objective: The goal of this study was to evaluate the utility of the stroke thrombolytic predictive instrument (s-TPI) in predicting clinical outcome in acute ischaemic stroke patients treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA).

Methods: We assessed the external validity of the s-TPI in 301 consecutive stroke patients treated with intravenous t-PA. Clinical outcome was measured with the modified Rankin scale (mRs) at 3 months. We used the s-TPI to calculate probabilities of a good outcome (mRs 0-1) and a very poor outcome (mRs 5-6). We compared these probabilities with the observed outcome using receiver-operator characteristics (ROC) curves and calibration curves. Subgroup analyses for different onset to treatment time windows were performed.

Results: According to the s-TPI, the mean predicted probability of a good and a very poor outcome in the validation cohort were 0.45 and 0.17. The area under the ROC curves were 0.80 (4.5 hour time window), 0.82 (3 hour time window) and 0.77 (3-4.5 hours time window) for predicting good outcome, and 0.78 (4.5 hours), 0.80 (3 hours) and 0.74 (3-4.5 hours) for predicting very poor outcome. Calibration curves revealed a slight overestimation of probabilities of a good outcome and underestimation of probabilities of a very poor outcome.

Conclusions: The s-TPI appears to be reasonably valid for predicting outcome after t-PA treatment in daily practice, although a slight overestimation of a good and underestimation of a very poor outcome was observed.








HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH REGISTER
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online  ¦  Website terms and conditions  ¦  Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.