Evidence Hub

Association Between Blood-Brain Barrier Disruption and Stroke-Associated Pneumonia in Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients After Endovascular Therapy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Haojun Ma, Rui Chen, Nannan Han, Han-Ming Ge, Shilin Li, Yanfei Wang, Xu-Dong Yan, Chengxue Du et al.

Clinical Interventions in Aging, 2024

254 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Background Stroke, particularly due to large vessel occlusion (LVO), is a major cause of mortality and disability globally. Endovascular therapy (ET) significantly improves outcomes for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients, but complications such as stroke-associated pneumonia (SAP) increase mortality and healthcare costs. This study investigates the association between blood-brain barrier (BBB) disruption and the increased risk of SAP and explores the relationship between BBB disruption and medium-term functional outcomes. Methods The retrospective cohort study was performed on AIS patients enrolled between January 2019 to February 2023 who underwent ET. Patients were divided into two groups: BBB disruption and without BBB disruption. Multiple logistic regression model was conducted to measure the association between BBB disruption and SAP. Mediation analysis was used to estimate the potential mediation effects on the associations of BBB disruption with SAP. A restricted cubic spline (RCS) regression model was used to further outline the connection between the highest CT value of hyperattenuated lesions areas and the risk of SAP. Results The study included 254 patients who underwent endovascular therapy, with 155 patients in the BBB disruption group (exposure) and 99 patients in the without BBB disruption group (control). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed a significantly increased risk of SAP in patients with BBB disruption (OR = 2.337, 95% CI: 1.118–4.990, p =…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 254 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free