Retrospective cohort study examines survival and disability outcomes from advanced stroke care in Kazakhstan, suggesting significant factors impacting mortality.
Background: Advanced endovascular procedures are increasingly used for ischemic stroke, but real-world evidence from middle-income settings remains limited, particularly regarding survival, disability, and neurorehabilitation. This study examined mortality, recorded disability, procedure-related differences, and neurorehabilitation exposure among patients receiving high-technology stroke care in Almaty, Kazakhstan. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 328 adults with ischemic stroke who underwent endovascular or stent-based procedures between 2014 and 2024. Survival was assessed using Kaplan–Meier analysis and Cox proportional-hazards regression. Binary mortality status and recorded disability were examined using logistic regression. Procedure codes were grouped as mechanical thrombectomy/endovascular removal, intracranial stenting, and embolization/coiling/other procedures. Results: Neurorehabilitation was received by 39% of patients and was associated with better crude survival (1 year survival 93.6% vs. 76.7%; 5-year survival 69.0% vs. 60.7%; log-rank p = 0.001). In the adjusted Cox model, older age (HR = 1.069, 95% CI 1.046–1.092, p < 0.001) and greater total bed-day burden (HR = 1.071, 95% CI 1.029–1.116, p = 0.001) were associated with higher mortality hazard. Binary neurorehabilitation was not independently associated with survival (p = 0.803). Male sex was the only consistent factor associated with recorded disability (fully adjusted OR = 2.662, 95% CI 1.261–5.617, p = 0.010). Conclusions: Older age and bed-day burden were the most stable mortality-related factors. Neurorehabilitation was linked to better crude survival but not adjusted survival or recorded disability. Procedure-related and disability findings should be considered exploratory because baseline stroke severity and validated functional scales were unavailable.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Төлеу et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: