Outcome Prediction in Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: The IN-REvASC Score
- Author:
Piers KLEIN
1
;
Liqi SHU
;
Thanh N. NGUYEN
;
James E. SIEGLER
;
Setareh Salehi OMRAN
;
Alexis N. SIMPKINS
;
Mirjam HELDNER
;
Adam de HAVENON
;
Hugo J. APARICIO
;
Mohamad ABDALKADER
;
Marios PSYCHOGIOS
;
Maria Cristina VEDOVATI
;
Maurizio PACIARONI
;
Rascha von MARTIAL
;
David S. LIEBESKIND
;
Diana Aguiar de SOUSA
;
Jonathan M. COUTINHO
;
Shadi YAGHI
;
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- From:Journal of Stroke 2022;24(3):404-416
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: We identified risk factors, derived and validated a prognostic score for poor neurological outcome and death for use in cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). Methods We performed an international multicenter retrospective study including consecutive patients with CVT from January 2015 to December 2020. Demographic, clinical, and radiographic characteristics were collected. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions were conducted to determine risk factors for poor outcome, mRS 3-6. A prognostic score was derived and validated. Results A total of 1,025 patients were analyzed with median 375 days (interquartile range [IQR], 180 to 747) of follow-up. The median age was 44 (IQR, 32 to 58) and 62.7% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed the following factors were associated with poor outcome at 90- day follow-up: active cancer (odds ratio [OR], 11.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.62 to 27.14; P<0.001), age (OR, 1.02 per year; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.04; P=0.039), Black race (OR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.10 to 4.27; P=0.025), encephalopathy or coma on presentation (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.39 to 5.30; P=0.004), decreased hemoglobin (OR, 1.16 per g/dL; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.014), higher NIHSS on presentation (OR, 1.07 per point; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.11; P=0.002), and substance use (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.16 to 4.71; P=0.017). The derived IN-REvASC score outperformed ISCVT-RS for the prediction of poor outcome at 90-day follow-up (area under the curve [AUC], 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.87] vs. AUC, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.76], χ2 P<0.001) and mortality (AUC, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.90] vs. AUC, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.66 to 0.79], χ2 P=0.03). Conclusions Seven factors were associated with poor neurological outcome following CVT. The INREvASC score increased prognostic accuracy compared to ISCVT-RS. Determining patients at highest risk of poor outcome in CVT could help in clinical decision making and identify patients for targeted therapy in future clinical trials.
