4.7 Article

Obesity and Recurrent Vascular Risk After a Recent Ischemic Stroke

期刊

STROKE
卷 42, 期 12, 页码 3397-U129

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.624957

关键词

body mass index; myocardial infarction; obesity; outcomes; overweight; paradox; prognosis; recurrent stroke; vascular death

资金

  1. Boehringer-Ingelheim
  2. Bayer Schering Pharma
  3. GlaxoSmithKline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Although obesity is an established risk factor for the occurrence of a primary stroke, little is known about the impact of baseline obesity on recurrent vascular risk among patients with recently symptomatic cerebrovascular disease. We evaluated the association of obesity with future vascular risk in patients with a recent history of stroke. Methods-We analyzed the database of a multicenter trial involving 20 332 patients with recent ischemic stroke followed for 2.5 years. Subjects were divided into 3 groups according to recognized body mass index categories representing lean, overweight, and obese. Primary outcome was time to first recurrent stroke and secondary outcome time to stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. The independent association of obesity with outcome was assessed by controlling for other known risk factors. Results-Of 20 246 eligible subjects, 4805 (24%) were obese. After adjusting for confounders, compared with the lean group, being overweight (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.06) or obese (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.83-1.08) was not associated with increased recurrent stroke risk, but being overweight (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92) or obese (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96) was associated with lower risk of a major vascular event. Conclusions-Obesity is not related to recurrent stroke risk, but obese patients with stroke are at lower overall vascular risk than their leaner counterparts, supporting the widely held notion of the existence of a cardiovascular obesity paradox. (Stroke. 2011;42:3397-3402.)

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