Background: : Various tools are currently available to quantify the risks of adverse clinical outcomes after an ischemic stroke. This study aimed to validate and compare prognostic scales among Chinese patients with ischemic stroke.
Methods: : We compared three stroke prognostic scales (Stroke Prognostication using Age and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale-100 [SPAN-100], Totaled Health Risks in Vascular Events [THRIVE], and Acute Stroke Registry and Analysis of Lausanne [ASTRAL]) in 3870 Chinese patients with ischemic stroke from the China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke (CATIS). The 2-year primary outcome was a combination of death and major disability (modified Rankin Scale score ≥3).
Results: : Among all the scales, the ASTRAL score had the best accuracy for predicting 2-year prognosis in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke. The C-statistic of the ASTRAL score for the 2-year primary outcome was 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.80), and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test showed that the ASTRAL score fitted Chinese patients with ischemic stroke well (χ2 = 9.83, P = 0.277). The incidences of the primary outcome in the <5%, 5%-9.9%, 10%-19.9%, and ≥20% risk groups based on the ASTRAL scores were 3.93%, 7.55%, 14.29%, and 41.81%, respectively (odds ratio: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.21-1.26; P < 0.001).
Conclusion: : The ASTRAL score had higher efficacy than the SPAN-100 and THRIVE scores in predicting 2-year adverse outcomes among Chinese patients with ischemic stroke, suggesting that it could be a valuable risk assessment tool for the 2-year prognosis of such patients.
Keywords: ASTRAL; Ischemic stroke; SPAN-100; THRIVE; prognostic scale.