4.6 Article

Quantifying the risk of heart disease following acute ischaemic stroke: a meta-analysis of over 50 000 participants

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 6, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009535

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Health (UK)
  2. MRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Following an acute stroke, there is a high risk of recurrence. However, the leading cause of mortality following a stroke is due to coronary artery disease (CAD) and myocardial infarction (MI) but that risk has not been robustly quantified. We sought to reliably quantify the risk of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in patients presenting with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) in the absence of a known cardiac history. Setting: A meta-analysis study. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched for potential studies up to October 2015. Included studies reported an acute cerebral ischaemic event and followed for CAD or MI within 1 year in patients without known IHD. Using arcsine transformed proportions for meta-analysis, studies were combined using a generic inverse variance random-effects model to calculate the pooled standardised mean difference and 95% CIs. These were interpreted as the percentage prevalence of CAD or incidence of MI following AIS. Results: 17 studies with 4869 patients with AIS demonstrated a mean average of asymptomatic CAD in 52%. Anatomical methods of CAD detection revealed a prevalence of asymptomatic >= 50% coronary stenosis in 32% (95% CI 19% to 47%; p<0.00001). 8 studies with 47229 patients with ischaemic stroke revealed an overall risk of MI in the year following stroke of 3% (95% CI 1% to 5%; p<0.00001) despite the absence of any cardiac history. Conclusions: One-third of patients with ischaemic stroke with no cardiac history have more than 50% coronary stenosis and 3% are at risk of developing MI within a year. Our findings provide a reliable quantitative measure of the risk of IHD following AIS in patients with no cardiac history.

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