4.3 Article

Cerebral Venous Thrombosis: A Tunisian Monocenter Study on 160 Patients

期刊

CLINICAL AND APPLIED THROMBOSIS-HEMOSTASIS
卷 23, 期 8, 页码 1005-1009

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1076029616665168

关键词

cerebral venous thrombosis; vascular disease; clinical thrombophilia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Data regarding cerebral venous thrombosis in North Africa are scarce. This study aims to identify the clinical features, risk factors, outcome, and prognosis of cerebral venous thrombosis in Tunisia. Methods: Data of 160 patients with radiologically confirmed cerebral venous thrombosis, hospitalized in Mongi Ben Hmida National Institute of Neurology (Tunis, Tunisia), were retrospectively collected and analyzed. Results: The mean age was 37.3 years with a female predominance (83.1%). The mode of onset was subacute in most cases (56.2%). Headache was the most common symptom (71.3%), and focal neurologic symptoms were the main clinical presentation (41.8%). The most common sites of thrombosis were the superior sagittal sinus (65%) and the lateral sinus (60.6%). More than 1 sinus was involved in 114 (71.2%) patients. Parenchymal lesions observed in 85 (53.1%) patients did not correlate with cerebral venous thrombosis extent. Major risk factors were obstetric causes (pregnancy and puerperium) found in 46 (38.6% of women aged < 50 years) patients, followed by anemia (28.1%) and congenital or acquired thrombophilia (16.2%). Mortality rate was of 6.6%. Good outcome at 6 months (modified Rankin Scale <= 2) was observed in 105 (87.5%) of 120 patients available for follow-up. Predictors of poor outcome were altered consciousness and elevated plasma C-reactive protein levels. Conclusion: Clinical and radiologic presentation of cerebral venous thrombosis in Tunisia was quite similar to other parts of the world with, however, a particularly high frequency of obstetric causes. Plasma C-reactive protein level should be considered as a prognostic factor in CVT.

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

4.3
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