Retrospective analysis reveals ePWV correlates with ICU mortality in ischemic stroke patients, suggesting its role as a biomarker.
Background Ischemic stroke poses a substantial global health burden. Reliable biomarkers for risk stratification in critically ill stroke patients are lacking. This study investigates estimated pulse wave velocity (ePWV), a non-invasive measure of arterial stiffness, as a novel prognostic indicator for mortality in this population. Methods This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 3,408 adult ischemic stroke patients admitted to the ICU within the MIMIC-IV database. Patients were categorized by ePWV tertiles. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality (in-hospital and ICU). Multivariate Cox regression models were employed to assess the association between ePWV and mortality, adjusting for comprehensive clinical variables. Results Of the 3,408 patients, 481 (14.1%) died within 28 days of hospitalization. Non-survivors demonstrated significantly higher ePWV values (11.19 vs. 10.57, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed that ePWV was an independent predictor of both in-hospital (HR = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05–1.28, P = 0.0033) and ICU 28-day mortality (HR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.16–1.48, P < 0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed significant interactions between ePWV and atrial fibrillation for in-hospital mortality ( P = 0.0498) and mechanical ventilation for ICU mortality ( P = 0.0294). For in-hospital mortality, the ePWV-associated risk was higher in patients with atrial fibrillation (HR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.07–1.31) compared to those without (HR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.98–1.23). For ICU mortality, the ePWV-associated risk was higher in patients without mechanical ventilation (HR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.24–1.70) compared to those with (HR 1.26, 95% CI: 1.11–1.44). Conclusion ePWV is a promising biomarker for predicting mortality in critically ill ischemic stroke patients, particularly identifying high-risk subgroups with atrial fibrillation or those not receiving timely mechanical ventilation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:
More from PLoS ONE