4.4 Article

Metabolic Syndrome in Polish Ischemic Stroke Patients

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 24, 期 9, 页码 2167-2172

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.06.003

关键词

Metabolic syndrome; prevalence; ischemic stroke; Poland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Metabolic syndrome (MetS) predisposes individuals to cardiovascular disease or stroke development. We aimed at evaluating the prevalence of MetS in a population of acute ischemic stroke (IS) patients from central Poland and at estimating the relationship between MetS and stroke risk. Methods: We analyzed 672 IS patients who were consecutively admitted to stroke units. The control group was composed of 612 patients with other neurologic disorders. MetS was diagnosed if 3 of 5 factors were present (obesity, increased blood pressure, increased triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol, and fasting hyperglycemia) according to the Unified Criteria for Clinical Diagnosis of the Metabolic Syndrome (2009). Results: MetS was diagnosed in 61.2% of stroke patients versus 18.1% of the control group (P < .001). Multiple logistic regression showed that MetS was 1.8 times more common in women than in men (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-2.5). The adjusted OR (95% CI) associated with MetS was 2.44 (1.48-3.64; P < .001) for IS. Hypertension and hypertriglyceridemia were the most frequent disturbances of IS patients (87.2% and 68.2%, respectively). The analysis of the interaction between MetS and its components showed significant associations with hypertension (OR, 2.15; 95% CI,.98-4.24; P < .01), high triglyceride levels (OR, 4.35; 95% CI, 2.87-9.43; P < .0001), and low HDL cholesterol levels (OR, 5.12; 95% CI, 3.15-8.20; P < .001). Conclusions: Over 60% of Polish IS patients have MetS. The prevalence of MetS was significantly higher in women than in men. Thus, MetS may be a risk factor for IS. (C) 2015 by National Stroke Association

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

4.4
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