| Title |
Impact of baseline characteristics on outcomes of carotid artery stenting in acute ischemic stroke patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s104933 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cheng-Sheng Yu, Chih-Ming Lin, Chi-Kuang Liu, Henry Horng-Shing Lu |
| Abstract |
Carotid artery stenting is an effective treatment for ischemic stroke patients with moderate-to-severe carotid artery stenosis. However, the midterm outcome for patients undergoing this procedure varies considerably with baseline characteristics. To determine the impact of baseline characteristics on outcomes following carotid artery stenting, data from 107 eligible patients with a first episode of ischemic stroke were collected by retrospective chart review. A modified Rankin Scale (mRS) was used to divide patients into two baseline groups, mRS ≤2 and mRS >2. A three-step decision-tree statistical analysis was conducted. After weighting the decision-tree parameters, the following impact hierarchy was obtained: admission low-density lipoprotein, gouty arthritis, chronic kidney disease, ipsilateral common carotid artery resistance index, contralateral ophthalmic artery resistance index, sex, and dyslipidemia. The finite-state machine model demonstrated that, in patients with baseline mRS ≤2, 46% had an improved mRS score at follow-up, whereas 54% had a stable mRS score. In patients with baseline mRS >2, a stable mRS score was observed in 75%, improved score in 23%, and a poorer score in 2%. Admission low-density lipoprotein was the strongest predictive factor influencing poststenting outcome. In addition, our study provides further evidence that carotid artery stenting can be of benefit in first-time ischemic stroke patients with baseline mRS scores >2. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 75% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 8 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 8 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 38% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 13% |
| Professor | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 1 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 38% |
| Psychology | 1 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 13% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 13% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 13% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2016.
All research outputs
#16,047,334
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#752
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,960
of 312,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#25
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,602 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.