4.6 Article

Risk factors and mechanisms of stroke in young adults: The FUTURE study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 38, Issue 9, Pages 1631-1641

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X17707138

Keywords

Etiology; ischemic stroke; risk factors; transient ischemic attack; young stroke

Funding

  1. Dutch Heart Foundation [2014T060]
  2. VIDI innovational grant from The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMw [016-126-351]
  3. Dutch Epilepsy Fund [2010-18]
  4. British Heart Foundation [FS/15/61/31626]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Incidence of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack in young adults is rising. However, etiology remains unknown in 30-40% of these patients when current classification systems designed for the elderly are used. Our aim was to identify risk factors according to a pediatric approach, which might lead to both better identification of risk factors and provide a stepping stone for the understanding of disease mechanism, particularly in patients currently classified as unknown etiology. Risk factors of 656 young stroke patients (aged 18-50) of the FUTURE study were categorized according to the International Pediatric Stroke Study (IPSS), with stratification on gender, age and stroke of unknown etiology. Categorization of risk factors into >= 1 IPSS category was possible in 94% of young stroke patients. Chronic systemic conditions were more present in patients aged <35 compared to patients >= 35 (32.6% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.05). Among 226 patients classified as stroke of unknown etiology using TOAST, we found risk factors in 199 patients (88%) with the IPSS approach. We identified multiple risk factors linked to other mechanisms of stroke in the young than in the elderly. This can be a valuable starting point to develop an etiologic classification system specifically designed for young stroke patients.

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