4.2 Article

Increased mortality after post-stroke epilepsy following primary intracerebral hemorrhage

期刊

EPILEPSY RESEARCH
卷 172, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2021.106586

关键词

Intracerebral hemorrhage; Post-Stroke epilepsy; Symptomatic epilepsy; Epilepsy; Mortality; Outcome; Long-Term; Epidemiology

资金

  1. Orion Research Foundation
  2. Finnish Epilepsy Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) predicted higher long-term mortality among patients with primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), with pneumonia being the most common cause of death among patients with PSE.
Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether post-stroke epilepsy (PSE) predicts mortality, and to describe the most prominent causes of death (COD) in a long-term follow-up after primary intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Methods: We followed 3-month survivors of a population-based cohort of primary ICH patients in Northern Ostrobothnia, Finland, for a median of 8.8 years. Mortality and CODs were compared between those who developed PSE and those who did not. PSE was defined according to the ILAE guidelines. CODs were extracted from death certificates (Statistics Finland). Results: Of 961 patients, 611 survived for 3 months. 409 (66.9%) had died by the end of the follow-up. Pneumonia was the only COD that was significantly more common among the patients with PSE (56% vs. 37% of deaths). In the multivariable models, PSE (hazard ratio [HR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.87), age (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.06-1.08), male sex (HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.67), dependency at 3 months (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.24-1.88), non-subcortical ICH location (subcortical location HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 0.99), diabetes (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.07-1.90) and cancer (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.98) predicted death in the long-term follow-up. Conclusion: PSE independently predicted higher late morality of ICH in our cohort. Pneumonia-related deaths were more common among the patients with PSE.

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

4.2
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