Effect of the Remote Ischemic Postconditioning on the Prognosis of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke beyond Time Window: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background The incidence of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains high, and a timely restoration of cerebral blood flow is crucial for its prognosis. There are less therapeutic approaches to promote recovery of cerebral blood flow in AIS patients treated beyond a limited time window. The analysis of remote ischemic postconditioning (RIPostC) on the efficacy, complications and prognosis of AIS patients beyond the time window is of great significance. Objective To investigate the role of RIPostC on the prognosis of AIS beyond time window, thus providing a safe and effective cerebral blood flow restoration way for AIS beyond time window. Methods It was a randomized, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial involving AIS patients beyond time window (onset time > 6 h) of thrombolysis who were hospitalized in the Department of Neurology, Beijing Aerospace General Hospital from September 2, 2021 to August 31, 2022. They were randomly assigned into the control group and experimental group, and treated and followed up for 90 days. General treatment and conventional treatment of cerebrovascular disease were performed in both groups. RIPostC and simulated RIPostC were respectively given 28 times within 14 days in the experimental group and control group, respectively. Before the intervention, and 30 days and 90 days after the intervention, neurological function was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Cognitive function was assessed by the Mini-mental Status Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Daily living ability was assessed by the Instrumental Activity of Daily Living (IADL). Mental status was assessed by the Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Cerebral blood flow velocity was assessed by the transcranial Doppler ultrasound (TCD). Inflammatory response was assessed by measuring interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels. Results Ninety-nine out of 122 AIS patients finally completed the trial and follow-up, including 49 patients in the experimental group and 50 in the control group. There were no significant differences in gender, age, underlying diseases (hypertension, diabetes, coronary heart disease) and baseline NIHSS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that there was an interaction between time and group on MMSE, MoCA, mRS, NIHSS, cerebral blood flow velocity, and IL-6 (P<0.05). Specifically, the main effects of time and group on MMSE, MoCA, NIHSS, cerebral blood flow velocity, and IL-6 were significant (P<0.05), and the main effects of time on mRS, SAS, SDS, and IADL were significant (P<0.05). The MMSE and MoCA scores and cerebral blood flow velocity on 30 days and 90 days after the intervention were significantly higher in the experimental group than those of the control group, while the mRS and NIHSS scores were significantly lower (P<0.05). The SDS and IADL scores on 30, 90 days after the intervention were significantly lower than those of control group (P<0.05). On 30 days after the intervention, AIS patients in the experimental group had significantly higher SAS score and lower IL-6 level than those of control group (P<0.05). Adverse events were reported in 23 AIS patients, including 17 in the experimental group and 6 in the control group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of skin petechiae, dizziness, palpitation, chest tightness between the two groups (P>0.05). The incidence of skin ecchymosis [4.00% (2/50) vs. 12.24% (6/49) ] and the overall incidence of adverse events [12.00% (6/50) vs. 34.69% (17/49) ] in the control group were significantly lower than those of the experimental group (P<0.05) . Conclusion RIPostC can reduce the inflammatory response in AIS patients, and protect neurological function, cognitive function, depression and intracranial blood flow velocity.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».