4.7 Article

Trends in 10-Year Survival of Patients With Stroke Hospitalized Between 1980 and 2000 The Minnesota Stroke Survey

期刊

STROKE
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 2575-+

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005512

关键词

epidemiology; stroke; survival

资金

  1. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)/National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R01NS39028]
  2. NINDS/NIH [K23NS051377]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-We report on trends in poststroke survival, both in the early period after stroke and over the long term. We examine these trends by stroke subtype. Methods-The Minnesota Stroke Survey is a study of all hospitalized patients with acute stroke aged 30 to 74 years in the Minneapolis-St Paul metropolis. Validated stroke events were sampled for survey years 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, and 2000 and subtyped as ischemic or hemorrhagic by neuroimaging for survey years 1990, 1995, and 2000. Survival was obtained by linkage to vital statistics data through the year 2010. Results-There were 3773 acute stroke events. Age-adjusted 10-year survival improved from 1980 to 2000 (men 29.5% and 46.5%; P<0.0001; women 32.6% and 50.5%; P<0.0001). Ten-year ischemic stroke survival (n=1667) improved from 1990 to 2000 (men 35.3% and 50%; P=0.0001; women 38% and 55.3%; P<0.0001). Ten-year hemorrhagic stroke survival showed a trend toward improvement, but this (n=489) did not reach statistical significance, perhaps because of their smaller number (men 29.7% and 45.8%; P=0.06; women 39.2% and 49.6%; P=0.2). Markers of stroke severity including unconsciousness or major neurological deficits at admission declined from 1980 to 2000 while neuroimaging use increased. Conclusions-These poststroke survival trends are likely because of multiple factors, including more sensitive case ascertainment shifting the case mix toward less severe strokes, improved stroke care and risk factor management, and overall improvements in population health and longevity.

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