Predicting Long-Term Outcome After Acute Ischemic Stroke

Background and Purpose—An early and reliable prognosis for recovery in stroke patients is important for initiation of individual treatment and for informing patients and relatives. We recently developed and validated models for predicting survival and functional independence within 3 months after acute stroke, based on age and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score assessed within 6 hours after stroke. Herein we demonstrate the applicability of our models in an independent sample of patients from controlled clinical trials. Methods—The prognostic models were used to predict survival and functional recovery in 5419 patients from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Furthermore, we tried to improve the accuracy by adapting intercepts and estimating new model parameters. Results—The original models were able to correctly classify 70.4% (survival) and 72.9% (functional recovery) of patients. Because the prediction was slightly pessimistic for patients in the controlled trials, adapting the intercept improved the accuracy to 74.8% (survival) and 74.0% (functional recovery). Novel estimation of parameters, however, yielded no relevant further improvement. Conclusions—For acute ischemic stroke patients included in controlled trials, our easy-to-apply prognostic models based on age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score correctly predicted survival and functional recovery after 3 months. Furthermore, a simple adaptation helps to adjust for a different prognosis and is recommended if a large data set is available. (Stroke. 2008;39:1821-1826.)

[1]  M. Kaste,et al.  Targeting Neuroprotection Clinical Trials to Ischemic Stroke Patients With Potential to Benefit From Therapy , 2004, Stroke.

[2]  M. Dennis,et al.  Predicting functional outcome in acute stroke: comparison of a simple six variable model with other predictive systems and informal clinical prediction , 2004, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry.

[3]  Andrew P Grieve,et al.  Acute Stroke Therapy by Inhibition of Neutrophils (ASTIN): An Adaptive Dose-Response Study of UK-279,276 in Acute Ischemic Stroke , 2003, Stroke.

[4]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  H. Diener,et al.  Improving Patient Selection for Clinical Acute Stroke Trials , 2006, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[6]  Xin Qun Wang,et al.  A predictive risk model for outcomes of ischemic stroke. , 2000, Stroke.

[7]  Steven Warach,et al.  Dose Escalation of Desmoteplase for Acute Ischemic Stroke (DEDAS): Evidence of Safety and Efficacy 3 to 9 Hours After Stroke Onset , 2006, Stroke.

[8]  D. Wagner,et al.  Predicting Outcome in Ischemic Stroke: External Validation of Predictive Risk Models , 2003, Stroke.

[9]  S. Warach,et al.  The Desmoteplase in Acute Ischemic Stroke Trial (DIAS): A Phase II MRI-Based 9-Hour Window Acute Stroke Thrombolysis Trial With Intravenous Desmoteplase , 2005, Stroke.

[10]  C. Warlow,et al.  Predicting Outcome After Acute and Subacute Stroke: Development and Validation of New Prognostic Models , 2002, Stroke.

[11]  D. Wagner,et al.  Combined Clinical and Imaging Information as an Early Stroke Outcome Measure , 2002, Stroke.

[12]  A. Ziegler,et al.  Age and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score Within 6 Hours After Onset Are Accurate Predictors of Outcome After Cerebral Ischemia: Development and External Validation of Prognostic Models , 2003, Stroke.

[13]  I R König,et al.  Patient-centered yes/no prognosis using learning machines , 2008, Int. J. Data Min. Bioinform..

[14]  Gengsheng Qin,et al.  A new confidence interval for the difference between two binomial proportions of paired data , 2005 .

[15]  A Ziegler,et al.  EDITOR Comments on ‘Practical experiences on the necessity of external validation’ , 2008 .

[16]  J. Grotta,et al.  The Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive , 2007, Stroke.

[17]  J. Wyatt,et al.  Commentary: Prognostic models: clinically useful or quickly forgotten? , 1995 .

[18]  D. G. Altman,et al.  Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology. , 1994, British Journal of Cancer.

[19]  C. Warlow,et al.  Performance of a Statistical Model to Predict Stroke Outcome in the Context of a Large, Simple, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Feeding , 2003, Stroke.

[20]  D. Levy,et al.  Intravenous ancrod for treatment of acute ischemic stroke: the STAT study: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke Treatment with Ancrod Trial. , 2000, JAMA.

[21]  Yvonne Vergouwe,et al.  Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[22]  Predicting outcome after acute ischemic stroke , 2004, Neurology.

[23]  Brian Silver,et al.  A three-item scale for the early prediction of stroke recovery , 2001, The Lancet.

[24]  Hiram S. Cody,et al.  A Nomogram for Predicting the Likelihood of Additional Nodal Metastases in Breast Cancer Patients With a Positive Sentinel Node Biopsy , 2003, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[25]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Methodological challenges in the evaluation of prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1998 .

[26]  V. Serebruany.  NXY-059 for acute ischemic stroke. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  J. Wardlaw,et al.  Prediction of outcome after stroke , 2001, The Lancet.

[28]  Christopher J Weir,et al.  Improving Trial Power Through Use of Prognosis-Adjusted End Points , 2005, Stroke.

[29]  M. Dennis,et al.  Systematic Review of Prognostic Models in Patients with Acute Stroke , 2001, Cerebrovascular Diseases.