Association of Statins and Statin Discontinuation With Poor Outcome and Survival After Intracerebral Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Studies suggest a protective role for statins after intracerebral hemorrhage, but many failed to assess statin discontinuation, did not include postdischarge outcomes, or did not account for withdrawal of care. We studied the relationship between preintracerebral hemorrhage statin use and in-hospital statin discontinuation on stroke severity and 30-day mortality. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network and determined the adjusted ORs for statin use and outcomes, controlling for stroke severity and other covariates. RESULTS: We analyzed 2466 consecutive patients with intracerebral hemorrhage from 2003 to 2008: median age was 71 years, 53.6% were male, and 30-day mortality rate was 36.5%. Overall, 537 (21.7%) were taking statins before presentation. Compared with nonusers, statin users were less likely to have severe strokes on presentation (54.7% versus 63.3%) but had similar rates of poor outcome (70% versus 67%) and 30-day mortality (36% versus 37%). Statins were discontinued on admission in 158 of 537 (29.4%); these patients were more likely to have severe stroke (65% versus 27%, P<0.01), poor outcome (90% versus 62%, P<0.01), and to have died by 30 days (71% versus 21%, P<0.01). After adjusting for stroke severity, statin discontinuation was still associated with poor outcome (adjusted OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.13-4.56) and higher mortality (adjusted OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.30-3.04). However, these associations were attenuated and no longer significant after excluding patients treated palliatively. CONCLUSIONS: We found no association between preadmission statin use and outcomes in intracerebral hemorrhage. Statin discontinuation may worsen outcomes or may simply be a marker of worse underlying prognosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".