4.5 Article

Hyperglycemia independently increases the risk of early death in acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE NEUROLOGICAL SCIENCES
卷 255, 期 1-2, 页码 90-94

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jns.2007.02.005

关键词

acute; cerebral hemorrhage; hyperglycemia; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: It is unclear whether hyperglycemia on admission in patients with acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) increases the risk of early death. Methods: 100 consecutive patients (median age, 67.8 years) with acute supratentorial ICH within 24h of onset were prospectively enrolled. Clinical characteristics and plasma glucose were assessed in all patients. ICH volume was measured on admission CT (< 24 h) and follow-up CT (< 48 h) scans. Patients were divided into two groups: the death group, who died within 14 days of onset, and the survival group. The association between early death and clinical characteristics were investigated by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The death group consisted of 11 patients (median age, 77 years), while the survival group consisted of 89 patients (median age, 67 years). The admission plasma glucose level and the ICH volume were higher in the death group than in the survival group (glucose: death, 205 mg/dI vs. survival, 131 mg/dI, p < 0.0001; and ICH volume: survival, 13.6 +/- 15.3 ml vs. death 101.1 +/- 48.7 ml, p < 0.0001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, cut-off values that predicted early death were 150 mg/dI for the glucose level and > 20 ml for the initial IVH volume. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, admission plasma glucose level > 150 mg/dI (OR 37.5, CI 1.4-992.7, p=0.03) and IVH volume > 20 ml (OR 64.6, CI 1.3-3173.5, p=0.04) were independent factors associated with early death. Conclusion: Admission hyperglycemia may independently increase the risk of early death in acute spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V 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

4.5
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