4.6 Article

Increased Risk of Ischemic Stroke in Young Patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Population-Based Longitudinal Follow-Up Study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 9, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094027

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Health (DOH), Executive Yuan, Republic of China [DOH93-TD-M-113-030, DOH94-TD-M-113-004, DOH95-TD-M-113-002]
  2. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Republic of China [NSC101-2314-B-002-088]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Prospective data on the association between ischemic stroke and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) in the young are sparse. The purpose of this population-based, age- and sex-matched longitudinal follow-up study was to investigate the risk of developing ischemic stroke in young patients with AS. Methods: A total of 4562 patients aged 18- to 45-year-old with at least two ambulatory visits in 2001 with a principal diagnosis of AS were enrolled in the AS group. The non-AS group consisted of 22810 age- and sex-matched, randomly sampled subjects without AS. The two-year ischemic stroke-free survival rate for each group were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio of ischemic stroke after adjusting for demographic and clinical covariates. Results: During follow-up, 21 patients in the AS group and 53 in the non-AS group developed ischemic stroke. The ischemic stroke-free survival rate over the 2 year follow-up was lower in the AS group than the non-AS group (p = 0.0021). The crude hazard ratio of ischemic stroke for the AS group was 1.98 (95% CI, 1.20-3.29; p = 0.0079) and the adjusted hazard ratio after controlling for demographic and comorbid medical disorders was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.16-3.20; p = 0.0110). Conclusion: Our study showed an increased risk of developing ischemic stroke in young patients with AS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available