4.2 Article

Gender Differences in Long-term Functional Outcome after First-ever Ischemic Stroke

Journal

INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 48, Issue 12, Pages 967-973

Publisher

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.48.1757

Keywords

gender differences; long-term functional outcomes; ischemic stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective Recent studies have demonstrated gender differences in functional outcome after stroke. However, the underlying reasons for differences have been inconsistent. The present study examined whether gender differences in long-term functional outcomes exist among surviving patients with first-ever ischemic stroke and with individual subtypes of stroke. Methods A total of 997 patients (654 men, 343 women) were followed for 5 years after discharge. Patients were assigned to 4 subtypes of ischemic stroke (atherothrombotic, lacunar, cardioembolic and unclassified infarction). Functional outcomes were expressed as locomotor activity, assessed using a questionnaire delivered by mail 1 and 5 years after stroke. Locomotor function was classified into 5 categories according to the grade of disability. Results Women showed significantly worse locomotor function than men at both 1 and 5 years (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01, respectively). Furthermore, significant gender differences in functional outcome were observed in all subtypes of ischemic stroke at 1 and 5 years after stroke. Logistic regression analysis revealed that gender was a significant determinant for functional outcome at 1 and 5 years after stroke (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). No significant gender difference was seen in the rate of stroke recurrence. Women also showed a worse survival ratio after stroke than men (p < 0.01). Conclusion The present study demonstrated significantly worse functional outcomes for women than for men at 1 and 5 years after stroke. Gender differences in long-term functional outcomes by subtypes of ischemic stroke were also significant.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available