Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Development and validation of a simplified Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument.

Neurology 2015 September 16
OBJECTIVES: The Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument (Stroke-TPI) predicts the probability of good and bad outcomes with and without recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA). We sought to rebuild and externally validate a simpler Stroke-TPI to support implementation in routine clinical care.

METHODS: Using the original derivation cohort of 1,983 patients from a combined database of randomized clinical trials (NINDS [National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke] 1 and 2; ATLANTIS [Alteplase Thrombolysis for Acute Noninterventional Therapy in Ischemic Stroke] A and B; and ECASS [European Cooperative Acute Stroke Study] II), we simplified the Stroke-TPI by reducing variables and interaction terms and by exploring simpler (3- and 8-item) stroke severity scores. External validation was performed in the ECASS III trial (n = 821).

RESULTS: The following 6 variables were most predictive of good outcomes: age, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, stroke severity, symptom onset to treatment time, and rtPA therapy. Treatment effect modifiers included onset to treatment time and systolic blood pressure. For the models predicting a bad outcome (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score ≥5), significant variables included age, stroke severity, and serum glucose. rtPA therapy did not change the risk of a poor outcome. Compared with models using the full NIH Stroke Scale, models using the 3-item severity score showed similar discrimination and excellent calibration. External validation on ECASS III showed similar performance (C statistics 0.75 [mRS score ≤1] and 0.80 [mRS score ≤2]).

CONCLUSION: A simpler model using a 3-item stroke severity score, instead of the 15-item NIH Stroke Scale, has similar prognostic value and may be easier to use in routine care. Future studies are needed to test whether it can improve process and clinical outcomes.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app