4.7 Article

Obesity and Recurrent Vascular Risk After a Recent Ischemic Stroke

Journal

STROKE
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 3397-U129

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.624957

Keywords

body mass index; myocardial infarction; obesity; outcomes; overweight; paradox; prognosis; recurrent stroke; vascular death

Funding

  1. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  2. Bayer Schering Pharma
  3. GlaxoSmithKline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose-Although obesity is an established risk factor for the occurrence of a primary stroke, little is known about the impact of baseline obesity on recurrent vascular risk among patients with recently symptomatic cerebrovascular disease. We evaluated the association of obesity with future vascular risk in patients with a recent history of stroke. Methods-We analyzed the database of a multicenter trial involving 20 332 patients with recent ischemic stroke followed for 2.5 years. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to recognized body mass index categories representing lean, overweight, and obese. Primary outcome was time to first recurrent stroke and secondary outcome time to stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The independent association of obesity with outcome was assessed by controlling for other known risk factors. Results-Of 20 246 eligible subjects, 4805 (24%) were obese. After adjusting for confounders, compared with the lean group, being overweight (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06) or obese (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08) was not associated with increased recurrent stroke risk, but being overweight (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92) or obese (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96) was associated with lower risk of a major vascular event. Conclusions-Obesity is not related to recurrent stroke risk, but obese patients with stroke are at lower overall vascular risk than their leaner counterparts, supporting the widely held notion of the existence of a cardiovascular obesity paradox. (Stroke. 2011;42:3397-3402.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available