Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 23;25(5):638–646. doi: 10.1111/cns.13093

Table 2.

Secondary outcomes in the 31 patients

Secondary outcomes Batroxobin group (Patient/segment, n = 21/64) Control group (Patient/segment, n = 10/28) Unadjusted OR (95%CI) Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Follow‐up evaluation on TOF MRV
Patients with recanalization, n (%) 15 (71.4) 3 (30.0) 5.84 (1.12‐30.40)a 6.05 (1.06‐34.69)a
Follow‐up evaluation on MRBTI
Patients with stenosis relieved, n (%) 19 (90.5) 6 (60.0) 6.33 (0.92‐43.62) 26.36 (1.10‐634.65)a
Segments with stenosis relieved, n (%) 44 (68.8) 13 (46.4) 2.54 (1.02‐6.32)a 4.52 (1.48‐13.75)b
Stenosis extent, median (IQR) 2.00 (1.00, 3.00) 2.00 (1.00, 3.00) 0.94 (0.43‐2.08) 0.66 (0.28‐1.57)
Neurological deficits
NIHSS at discharge, median (IQR) 0.00 (0.00, 1.00) 0.00 (0.00, 2.00) 0.71 (0.12‐4.26) 0.61 (0.34‐1.10)
mRS at 3 mo, median (IQR) 2.00 (1.00, 2.00) 2.00 (1.00, 2.25) 1.10 (0.27‐4.49) 1.14 (0.26‐5.04)
Hemorrhage occurrence/aggravation, n (%) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)

—: nonavailable.

Binary data or ordinal data were analyzed through a binary or ranked logistic regression model to adjust for confounding effects, while continuous data analysis was performed with a linear regression model to adjust for confounding effects. The confounding factors included follow‐up time and thrombophilia in the multivariate analyses of patients with stenosis relieved, segments with stenosis relieved and stenosis extent, and NIHSS at admission in the analysis of NIHSS at discharge and mRS at 6 mo.

a

P < 0.05.

b

P < 0.01.