4.2 Article

The Burden of Stroke Mimics: Present and Future Projections

期刊

JOURNAL OF STROKE & CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 1288-1295

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2017.12.011

关键词

Demography; diagnosis; projections; stroke; stroke mimics

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [237809]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose: An increasing proportion of patients presenting with suspected stroke prove to have other conditions, often referred to as stroke mimics. The aim of this study was to present a projection of the number of hospitalized strokes, transient ischemic attacks (TIAs), and stroke mimics in Norway up to the year 2050 based on expected demographic changes, to estimate the burden of stroke mimics in the coming decades. Materials and Methods: This prospective study included all admissions to the stroke unit of Akershus University Hospital from March 1, 2012, to February 28, 2013. Relevant resource use was recorded. Based on the age-and sex-specific absolute incidences for the study period, the expected numbers of strokes, TIAs, and stroke mimics in the entire Norwegian population were computed for every fifth year for the period 2020-2050. Results: We included 1881 admissions, of which 38.2% were stroke mimics. With constant age-and sex-dependent incidence rates, we estimated that the number of strokes and stroke mimics will respectively increase by 121.3% and 88.7% (men) and 97.6% and 71.7% (women). For hospital admission levels to stay constant at the 2013 level, an annual reduction of 2.1% and 1.7% (men) and 1.8% and 1.5% (women) must take place for strokes and mimics, respectively. Conclusions: A significant proportion of stroke unit admissions prove to have other conditions than stroke. With constant age-and sex-dependent incidence rates, the number of stroke mimics admissions will increase substantially over the next decades. (c) 2018 National Stroke Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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