4.5 Article

Clinical characteristics of patients with ischemic stroke after the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake, a multi-center study

Journal

NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 5055-5063

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-021-05179-1

Keywords

Ischemic stroke; Brain infarction; Earthquake

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The 2016 Kumamoto earthquake may have affected the characteristics of stroke patients in terms of severity and discharge destination, with a decrease in certain types of stroke in the month following the earthquake.
Objective To investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with ischemic stroke following the 2016 Kumamoto earthquake. Methods We retrospectively studied patients with ischemic stroke admitted to 5 stroke centers for 1 year after the earthquake. We compared clinical characteristics in these patients (the post-earthquake group) to those in the patients with ischemic stroke admitted during the same period from the previous 3 years (the pre-earthquake group). Additionally, we analyzed the trend of the incidence rate of stroke before and after the earthquake. Results A total of 1979 patients were admitted after the earthquake; 5670 (1,890/year on average) patients were admitted before the earthquake. A first-ever ischemic stroke (71 vs. 75%) and premorbid modified Rankin Scale > 1 (26 vs. 29%) were found significantly more frequently in patients after the earthquake. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score <= 2 at discharge (60 vs. 65%) was found more frequently in patients after the earthquake, although non-discharge to home (65 vs. 70%) was more frequent in patients after the earthquake. Trend analysis revealed a decrease of small vessel occlusion and large artery atherosclerosis in the month after the earthquake. Conclusions The 2016 Kumamoto earthquake may have affected the characteristics of stroke during the early phase of the earthquake and increased the difficulty in returning home.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available