4.6 Review

Long-term prognosis after intracerebral haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jnnp-2013-306476

关键词

-

资金

  1. British Heart Foundation
  2. MRC [G1002605] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Medical Research Council [G1002605] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim There is uncertainty about the long-term prognosis after spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). Therefore, we systematically reviewed the literature for studies reporting long-term survival and ICH recurrence, and their predictors. Methods We searched Ovid Medline 1946-2011 inclusive for cohort studies of >= 50 patients reporting long-term (>30 days) outcome after ICH. Two reviewers independently extracted data from each study. We meta-analysed 1-year and 5-year survival data from population-based studies using a random effects model (and quantified inconsistency using the I-2 statistic). Results We identified 122 eligible studies. The pooled estimate of 1-year survival was 46% (95% CI 43% to 49%; nine population-based studies (n=2408); I-2=27%) and 5-year survival was 29% (95% CI 26% to 33%; three population-based studies (n=699); I-2=6%). In 27 cohort studies, predictors most consistently associated with death were increasing age, decreasing Glasgow Coma Scale score, increasing ICH volume, presence of intraventricular haemorrhage, and deep/infratentorial ICH location. The annual risk of recurrent ICH varied from 1.3% to 7.4% in nine studies and this risk was higher after lobar ICH than non-lobar ICH in two of three hospital-based studies. Four studies reporting the risks of recurrent ICH and ischaemic stroke after ICH found no significant differences between these risks. Conclusions Less than a half of patients with ICH survive 1 year and less than a third survive 5 years. Risks of recurrent ICH and ischaemic stroke after ICH appear similar after ICH, provoking uncertainties about the use of antithrombotic drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据