4.3 Article

Long-term mortality, morbidity and hospital care following intracerebral hemorrhage: An 11-year cohort study

Journal

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
Volume 23, Issue 2-3, Pages 221-228

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000097645

Keywords

intracerebral hemorrhage, mortality; intracerebral, hemorrhage, morbidity; intracerebral hemorrhage, cost; ischemic stroke

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Purpose: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) represents the severest form of stroke, yet examinations of long-term prognosis and associated health care use are rare. This study assessed survival, morbidity and cost of hospital care over 11 years following a first-ever ICH in the UK. Methods: We used a population-based retrospective inception cohort design using data from the Hospital Record Linkage System in Scotland. Long-term survival, morbidity and treatment provided in hospitals were evaluated in all patients with a first diagnosis of ICH in 1995. A cohort of ischemic stroke ( IS) patients was also examined for comparison. Results: A total of 705 patients with ICH and 8,893 with IS were identified. The mean age was 65 years (SD = 17.2) for ICH and 73 years ( SD = 11.8) for IS at stroke onset. The acute in-hospital mortality was 45.7 and 30.1% for ICH and IS, 51.2 and 39.9% at 1 year, while 76.0 and 80.4% were dead 11 years later. The cumulative risk of nonfatal or fatal ICH was 8.0, 12.7 and 13.7% at 1, 5 and 10 years, and 7.0, 11.1 and 12.9% for IS in the ICH cohort. The mean cost of initial hospital care was GBP 10,332 (SD = 19,919) for ICH and GBP 9,937 ( SD = 15,777) for IS. The mean total costs over 11 years were GBP 18,629 ( SD = 29,943) for ICH and GBP 21,505 ( SD = 27,190) for IS. Conclusion: Following a first ICH, individuals have a poorer short-term prognosis than individuals with IS, yet both ICH and IS imply significant follow-up care. Copyright (c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available