Key result
Posterior circulation strokes had a similar rate of favorable clinical outcome compared to anterior circulation strokes in non-thrombolysed patients (78.4% vs 67.0%; p=0.08).
Why the study?
Do clinical, radiological, and outcome characteristics differ between patients with posterior circulation strokes and anterior circulation strokes?
Observational (n=405)
Do clinical, radiological, and outcome characteristics differ between patients with posterior circulation strokes and anterior circulation strokes?
Absolute Event Rate: 78.4% vs 67%
p-value: p=0.08
Baseline variables, aetiologies, and clinical outcomes are similar between patients with posterior and anterior circulation strokes, suggesting PCS warrants the same diagnostic evaluation as ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Similar outcomes in non-thrombolysed posterior versus anterior strokes may support equivalent diagnostic evaluation; leaves open prospective confirmation.
Marchis et al. (2010) conducted an observational in First ever anterior or posterior circulation strokes (n=405). Posterior circulation strokes (PCS) vs. Anterior circulation strokes (ACS) was evaluated on Favourable clinical outcome (modified Rankin score 0-2) in non-thrombolysed patients (p=0.08). Posterior circulation strokes had a similar rate of favorable clinical outcome compared to anterior circulation strokes in non-thrombolysed patients (78.4% vs 67.0%; p=0.08).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: