4.7 Article

Stroke subtype, vascular risk factors, and total MRI brain small-vessel disease burden

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 83, 期 14, 页码 1228-1234

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000000837

关键词

-

资金

  1. Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Executive [217 NTU R37933]
  2. Wellcome Trust [075611, WT088134/Z/09/A]
  3. Medical Research Council [MR/J006971/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [MR/J006971/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In this cross-sectional study, we tested the construct validity of a total SVD score, which combines individual MRI features of small-vessel disease (SVD) in one measure, by testing associations with vascular risk factors and stroke subtype. Methods: We analyzed data from patients with lacunar or nondisabling cortical stroke from 2 prospective stroke studies. Brain MRI was rated for the presence of lacunes, white matter hyperintensities, cerebral microbleeds, and perivascular spaces independently. The presence of each SVD feature was summed in an ordinal SVD score (range 0-4). We tested associations with vascular risk factors, stroke subtype, and cerebral atrophy using ordinal regression analysis. Results: In 461 patients, multivariable analysis found that age (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-1.12), male sex (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.10-2.29), hypertension (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.02-2.20), smoking (OR 2.81, 95% CI 1.59-3.63), and lacunar stroke subtype (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.70-3.54) were significantly and independently associated with the total SVD score. The score was not associated with cerebral atrophy. Conclusions: The total SVD score may provide a more complete estimate of the full impact of SVD on the brain, in a simple and pragmatic way. It could have potential for patient or risk stratification or early efficacy assessment in clinical trials of interventions to prevent SVD progression and may (after further testing) have a useful role in clinical practice.

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