4.6 Article

Prevalence and clinical characteristics of stroke patients with p.R544C NOTCH3 mutation in Taiwan

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/acn3.690

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and Technology, ROC Grants [106-2314-B-002-001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Features of cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarct and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) caused by NOTCH3 mutations vary between ethnicities and regions. In Taiwan, more than 70% of CADASIL patients carry the mutation hot spot of p.R544C. We investigated the prevalence of NOTCH3 p.R544C mutation in stroke patients in Taiwan. Methods This prospective, multicenter study recruited acute stroke patients within 10 days of symptom onset. The p.R544C mutation was identified by polymerase chain reaction with confronting two-pair primers and sequencing. Clinical parameters, vascular risk factors, stroke subtypes, and stroke outcomes were analyzed. Results Of the 1970 stroke patients (mean age 61.1 +/- 13.6 years, male 69.5%) included, 1705 (86.5%) had ischemic stroke and 265 (13.5%) had intracerebral hemorrhage. The prevalence of p.R544C in the study population was 2.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.1-3.5%). The prevalence was highest in patients with small vessel occlusion type of ischemic stroke (5.6%), followed by intracerebral hemorrhage (5.3%), and infarct of undetermined etiology (2.7%), and was low in patients with cardioembolism (0.8%) and large artery atherosclerosis (0.7%). All p.R544C patients with intracerebral hemorrhage were nonlobar hemorrhage. Sibling history of stroke (odds ratio [OR] = 4.50, 95% CI = 1.67-12.14 in ischemic stroke; OR = 6.03, 95% CI = 1.03-35.47 in intracerebral hemorrhage, respectively) and small vessel occlusion (OR, 4.03, 95% CI, 1.26-12.92) were significantly associated with p.R544C. Interpretation p.R544C NOTCH3 mutation is underdiagnosed in stroke patients in Taiwan, especially in those with small vessel occlusion and sibling history of stroke.

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