@article{KraftFleischerWiedmannetal.2017,
  author    = {Kraft, Peter and Fleischer, Anna and Wiedmann, Silke and R{\"u}cker, Viktoria and Mackenrodt, Daniel and Morbach, Caroline and Malzahn, Uwe and Kleinschnitz, Christoph and St{\"o}rk, Stefan and Heuschmann, Peter U.},
  title     = {Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care handheld echocardiography in acute ischemic stroke patients - a pilot study},
  series = {BMC Neurology},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {BMC Neurology},
  number    = {159},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12883-017-0937-8},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-158081},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background: Standard echocardiography (SE) is an essential part of the routine diagnostic work-up after ischemic stroke (IS) and also serves for research purposes. However, access to SE is often limited. We aimed to assess feasibility and accuracy of point-of-care (POC) echocardiography in a stroke unit (SU) setting. Methods: IS patients were recruited on the SU of the University Hospital W{\"u}rzburg, Germany. Two SU team members were trained in POC echocardiography for a three-month period to assess a set of predefined cardiac parameters including left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Diagnostic agreement was assessed by comparing POC with SE executed by an expert sonographer, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) or kappa (κ) with 95\% confidence intervals (95\% CI) were calculated. Results: In the 78 patients receiving both POC and SE agreement for cardiac parameters was good, with ICC varying from 0.82 (95\% CI 0.71-0.89) to 0.93 (95\% CI 0.87-0.96), and κ from 0.39 (-95\% CI 0.14-0.92) to 0.79 (95\% CI 0.67-0.91). Detection of systolic dysfunction with POC echocardiography compared to SE was very good, with an area under the curve of 0.99 (0.96-1.00). Interrater agreement for LVEF measured by POC echocardiography was good with κ 0.63 (95\% CI 0.40-0.85). Conclusions: POC echocardiography in a SU setting is feasible enabling reliable quantification of LVEF and preliminary assessment of selected cardiac parameters that might be used for research purposes. Its potential clinical utility in triaging stroke patients who should undergo or do not necessarily require SE needs to be investigated in larger prospective diagnostic studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{KraftDrechslerGunrebenetal.2015,
  author    = {Kraft, Peter and Drechsler, Christiane and Gunreben, Ignaz and Heuschmann, Peter Ulrich and Kleinschnitz, Christoph},
  title     = {Case-control study of platelet glycoprotein receptor Ib and IIb/IIIa expression in patients with acute and chronic cerebrovascular disease},
  series = {PLoS ONE},
  volume    = {10},
  journal   = {PLoS ONE},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pone.0119810},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-148806},
  pages     = {e0119810},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Background Animal models have been instrumental in defining thrombus formation, including the role of platelet surface glycoprotein (GP) receptors, in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, the involvement of GP receptors in human ischemic stroke pathophysiology and their utility as biomarkers for ischemic stroke risk and severity requires elucidation. Aims To determine whether platelet GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa receptors are differentially expressed in patients with AIS and chronic cerebrovascular disease (CCD) compared with healthy volunteers (HV) and to identify predictors of GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa expression. Methods This was a case-control study of 116 patients with AIS or transient ischemic attack (TIA), 117 patients with CCD, and 104 HV who were enrolled at our University hospital from 2010 to 2013. Blood sampling was performed once in the CCD and HV groups, and at several time points in patients with AIS or TIA. Linear regression and analysis of variance were used to analyze correlations between platelet GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa receptor numbers and demographic and clinical parameters. Results GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa receptor numbers did not significantly differ between the AIS, CCD, and HV groups. GPIb receptor expression level correlated significantly with the magnitude of GPIIb/IIIa receptor expression and the neutrophil count. In contrast, GPIIb/IIIa receptor numbers were not associated with peripheral immune-cell sub-population counts. Creactive protein was an independent predictor of GPIIb/IIIa (not GPIb) receptor numbers. Conclusions Platelet GPIb and GPIIb/IIIa receptor numbers did not distinguish between patient or control groups in this study, negating their potential use as a biomarker for predicting stroke risk.},
  language  = {en}
}