4.6 Article

The Incidence and Relative Risk of Stroke among Patients with Bipolar Disorder: A Seven-Year Follow-Up Study

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073037

关键词

-

资金

  1. Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study aimed to estimate the incidence and relative risk of stroke and post-stroke all-cause mortality among patients with bipolar disorder. Methods: This study identified a study population from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) between 1999 and 2003 that included 16,821 patients with bipolar disorder and 67,284 age- and sex-matched control participants without bipolar disorder. The participants who had experienced a stroke between 1999 and 2003 were excluded and were randomly selected from the NHIRD. The incidence of stroke (ICD-9-CM code 430-438) and patient survival after stroke were calculated for both groups using data from the NIHRD between 2004 and 2010. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to compare the seven-year stroke-free survival rate and all-cause mortality rate across the two cohorts after adjusting for confounding risk factors. Results: A total of 472 (2.81%) patients with bipolar disorder and 1,443 (2.14%) controls had strokes over seven years. Patients with bipolar disorder were 1.24 times more likely to have a stroke (95% CI = 1.12-1.38; p < 0.0001) after adjusting for demographic characteristics and comorbid medical conditions. In addition, 513 (26.8%) patients who had a stroke died during the follow-up period. The all-cause mortality hazard ratio for patients with bipolar disorder was 1.28 (95% CI = 1.06-1.55; p = 0.012) after adjusting for patient, physician and hospital variables. Conclusions: The likelihood of developing a stroke was greater among patients with bipolar disorder than controls, and the all-cause mortality rate was higher among patients with bipolar disorder than controls during a seven-year follow-up period.

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