4.7 Article

Association of cholesterol with stroke risk varies in stroke subtypes and patient subgroups

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 63, 期 10, 页码 1868-1875

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/01.WNL.0000144282.42222.DA

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL60739, HL40628, HL68639, HL43201] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG09556] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [K23 NS02119-03] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To perform a health maintenance organization-based case-control study to evaluate the association of total and high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol with the risk of stroke subtypes and in patient subgroups. Methods: Cases had a confirmed incident ischemic stroke (n = 1,242) or hemorrhagic stroke (n = 313). Controls (n = 6,455) were identified in a companion myocardial infarction study. Risk of stroke was modeled using logistic regression. Results: The highest total cholesterol quintile was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke compared to the lowest quintile (OR = 1.6, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.0) with the strongest subtype associations for atherosclerotic stroke (OR = 3.2) and lacunar stroke (OR = 2.4). The highest HDL cholesterol quintile was associated with a decreased risk of ischemic stroke compared to the lowest quintile (OR = 0.8, CI 0.6 to 1.0). Subgroup analyses suggested that the total cholesterol association was more important for patients <66 years of age and those with HDL <50 mg/dL; the HDL association was more important for patients without diabetes or atrial fibrillation. The second through fourth total cholesterol quintiles were associated with a decreased risk of hemorrhagic stroke compared to the lowest quintile (OR = 0.7, CI 0.5 to 1.0). Conclusions: Higher total and lower HDL cholesterol levels were associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke, especially certain stroke subtypes and patient subgroups. The lowest levels of total cholesterol were associated with an increased risk of all hemorrhagic strokes.

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