4.7 Article

A population-based study on dementia and stroke in 97 year olds

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 41, 期 4, 页码 529-533

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afs040

关键词

stroke; dementia; epidemiology; mortality; ageing; elderly

资金

  1. Swedish Research Council [11267, 825-2007-7462]
  2. Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research [2001-2835, 2001-2849, 2005-0762, 2008-1210, Epilife 2006-1506]
  3. Alzheimer Association, USA [IIRG-03-6168]
  4. Stiftelsen Soderstrom-Konigska Sjukhemmet
  5. Stiftelsen for Gamla Tjanarinnor
  6. Bror Gadelius Foundation
  7. Hjalmar Svensson Foundation
  8. Swedish Brain Power

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: to examine the prevalence of stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and dementia, their inter-relationship and their relation to 2-year mortality and institutionalisation in 97 year olds. Methods: a population-based sample of 97 year olds (n = 591) was examined. Information on stroke/TIA was obtained from self-reports, key informants and hospital discharge registers. Dementia was diagnosed according to DSM-III-R criteria. Results: the response rate was 65%. The prevalence of dementia was 32.7% in men and 59.3% in women (P < 0.001). The prevalence of stroke/TIA was 21.5% (17.8% in men, 22.3% in women). Stroke/TIA was related to dementia in women (odds ratio = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.2-3.0), but not in men. Dementia, but not stroke/TIA, was related to 2-year mortality and institutionalisation in logistic regression models. Conclusion: dementia was very common in this age group, and related to mortality and institutionalisation. Stroke/TIA in 97 year olds showed less association with dementia, mortality and institutionalisation than reported in studies of younger elderly populations. The finding that stroke was not associated with dementia in men needs to be taken cautiously due to the small number of men. The findings also emphasise that more studies are needed to scrutinise the aetiology of dementia in nonagenarians.

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

4.7
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