4.1 Article

Hematocrit and the incidence of stroke: a prospective, population-based cohort study

期刊

THERAPEUTICS AND CLINICAL RISK MANAGEMENT
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 2081-2088

出版社

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/TCRM.S174961

关键词

hematocrit; stroke; cohort

资金

  1. Prevention and Control of Major Chronic Noncommunicable Diseases Program of China [2016YFC0901001, 2017YFC1310900]
  2. Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission [D151100002015003]
  3. Beijing Municipal Administration of Hospitals' Mission Plan [SML20150502]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Whether higher hematocrit levels could increase the incidence of stroke has always been full of controversy. This study aimed to explore the association between hematocrit and the incidence of stroke in the Chinese population. Subjects and methods: The Kailuan study is a prospective longitudinal cohort study on risk factors and events of chronic diseases. Using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, we examined the association between baseline hematocrit values and the incidence of stroke in the Kailuan cohort (93,299 participants). Results: A total of 3,624 participants developed stroke during the 9-year follow-up period. In Cox regression models adjusted for demographic information and for clinical variables, there was a significant association between baseline hematocrit levels and the incidence of stroke. The highest hematocrit quartile (quartile 5: men, hematocrit > 48.6%; women, hematocrit > 43.2%) was associated with a higher incidence of stroke (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.31, P for trend =0.0016) compared with the lowest hematocrit quartile (quartile 1: men, hematocrit < 41.5%; women, hematocrit < 36.6%). In the analysis of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage separately, similar association was observed in ischemic stroke, but there were no statistical differences in intracerebral hemorrhage. Condusion: Higher hematocrit levels are associated with a higher incidence of stroke in the Chinese population.

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

4.1
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