4.7 Article

Prestroke physical activity is associated with severity and long-term outcome from first-ever stroke

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 71, 期 17, 页码 1313-1318

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000327667.48013.9f

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ludvig and Sara Elsass Foundation
  2. Hede Nielsen Foundation
  3. Eva and Henry Fraenkels Foundation
  4. Soren and Helene Hempels Foundation
  5. King Christian the 10th Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether prestroke level of physical activity influenced stroke severity and long-term outcome. Methods: Patients included into the present analyses represent a subset of patients with first-ever stroke enrolled into the ExStroke Pilot Trial. Patients with ischemic stroke were randomized in the ExStroke Pilot Trial to an intervention of repeated instructions and encouragement to increase the level of physical activity or to a control group. Prestroke level of physical activity was assessed retrospectively by interview using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) questionnaire. The PASE questionnaire quantifies the amount of physical activity done during a 7-day period. In this prospectively collected patient population initial stroke severity was measured using the Scandinavian Stroke Scale and long-term outcome was assessed after 2 years using the modified Rankin Scale. Statistical analyses were done using ordinal logistic regression. Results: Data from 265 patients were included with a mean (SD) age of 68.2 (12.2) years. Confirming univariable analyses, multivariable analyses showed that patients with physical activity in the top quartile more likely presented with a less severe stroke, OR 2.54 (95% CI 1.30-4.95), and had a decreased likelihood of poor outcome, OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.22-0.96), compared to patients in the lowest quartile. Conclusions: In the present study physical activity prior to stroke was associated with a less severe stroke and better long-term outcome. Neurology (R) 2008; 71: 1313-1318

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

4.7
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