4.2 Article

C-reactive Protein and Homocysteine Predict Long-term Mortality in Young Ischemic Stroke Patients

Journal

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 22, Issue 8, Pages E435-E440

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.04.031

Keywords

Cerebral infarction; C-reactive protein; homocysteine; mortality; young adults

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We investigated the relationship between C-reactive protein (CRP) and homocysteine on follow-up and subsequent mortality in young ischemic stroke patients in a population-based study. Methods: Young ischemic stroke patients were followed-up on average 6 years after the index stroke. CRP and homocysteine levels were measured and risk factors were recorded, including myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, alcoholism, and cancer. Stroke outcome was measured using the modified Rankin Scale score. Subsequent survival was obtained by examining the official population registry. Cox regression analyses were performed. Results: In total, 198 patients were included in this study (82 [41%] women and 116 [59%] men). The mean age on follow-up was 47.8 years. In total, 36 (18.2%) patients died during the subsequent mean follow-up of 12.4 years. Cox regression analysis revealed that mortality was associated with CRP (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05; P = .001) and homocysteine levels (HR 1.04; P = .02) in patients without dissection. Kaplan-Meier curves grouped by dichotomized CRP (CRP <= 1 v >1 mg/L) showed increasing separation between the survival curves, and likewise for dichotomized homocysteine (<= 9 v >9 mu g/L). Conclusions: There is an independent association between CRP and homocysteine levels obtained several years after ischemic stroke in young adults and subsequent mortality, even when adjusting for traditional risk factors. This association seems to continue for at least 12 years after the measurements.

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