4.5 Article

TEMPORAL TRENDS IN ORAL INTAKE ABILITY 3 MONTHS AFTER ACUTE ISCHAEMIC STROKE: ANALYSIS OF A SINGLE-CENTRE DATABASE FROM 2003 TO 2011

期刊

JOURNAL OF REHABILITATION MEDICINE
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 200-205

出版社

FOUNDATION REHABILITATION INFORMATION
DOI: 10.2340/16501977-1260

关键词

dysphagia; outcome; annual trends

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To analyse the 9-year trend in oral intake ability 3 months after onset in acute stroke patients, with a view to indirect clarification of advances in acute stroke treatment and swallowing rehabilitation. Methods: A database of patients admitted to our hospital (Saiseikai Kumamoto Hospital, Kumamoto) with acute ischaemic stroke between 2003 and 2011 was analysed. Exclusion criteria were: patients with premorbid modified Rankin Scale score >= 1; those who died during hospital stay; and those whose outcomes after 3 months were not recorded. Mode of nutritional intake was investigated with a questionnaire posted to the patient 3 months after stroke onset. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to mode of nutritional intake: an oral intake group and a non-oral intake group. Whether the date or year of admission were related to the proportion of patients with oral intake, independent of other factors, was investigated using a logistic regression model. Results: Of a total of 2,913 patients, 2,677 (91.9%) were included in the oral intake group. The proportion of patients with oral intake 3 months after stroke increased significantly over the period of analysis (p = 0.034 by Cochran-Armitage test). On logistic regression analysis, the trend was significant after adjustment for age, sex, vascular risk factors, stroke subtype, and stroke severity on admission (odds ratio 1.098, 95% confidence interval 1.029-1.173; per 1 year). Conclusion: The proportion of ischaemic stroke patients in the institution studied who were capable of oral intake at 3 months post-stroke increased significantly over the past decade, independent of other patient characteristics.

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

4.5
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