4.7 Article

Increased Risk of Cerebrovascular Disease Among Patients With Neurofibromatosis Type 1 Population-Based Approach

期刊

STROKE
卷 47, 期 1, 页码 60-65

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.011406

关键词

case-control studies; cerebral hemorrhage; genetics; neurofibromatosis; stroke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose Although neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) may be associated with an incompletely understood vasculopathy, relative odds of stroke in this population is not known. Methods Using the 1998 to 2009 US Nationwide Inpatient Sample, we performed a case-control study matching cases of NF1 to controls without such a diagnosis. We then compared the odds of stroke between the 2 groups. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for known or suspected confounders. Results NF1 was associated with younger mean age at the time of stroke (41 versus 48) and a lower prevalence of stroke risk factors among adult patients. Pediatric patients with NF1, however, were more likely to have hypertension. Patients with NF1 were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with any stroke (odds ratio, 1.2; P<0.0001) than the general population. The odds of intracerebral hemorrhage were greatest among hemorrhagic stroke types analyzed (odds ratio, 1.9; P<0.0001). In the pediatric NF1 population, the odds of intracerebral hemorrhage were more dramatically elevated (odds ratio, 8.1; P<0.0001). The odds of ischemic stroke were also increased with NF1 in the pediatric (odds ratio, 3.4; P<0.0001) but not in the adult population. Conclusions When compared with the general population, the odds of any type of stroke are significantly increased for patients with NF1, both adult and pediatric. This risk is most notable for hemorrhagic strokes although it is also increased for ischemic strokes in children. Physicians should be aware of the increased risk of stroke in this population, and consider stroke as a potential cause of new neurological symptoms.

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