4.7 Article

White matter hyperintensity on cranial magnetic resonance imaging - A predictor of stroke

期刊

STROKE
卷 35, 期 8, 页码 1821-1825

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000132193.35955.69

关键词

stroke; magnetic resonance imaging; white matter; infarcts, silent; hypertension; diabetes mellitus

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [N01 HC-15103, N01-HC-85080, N01-HC-85082, N01-HC-85083, N01-HC-85079, N01-HC-35129, N01-HC-85081, N01-HC-85086, N01-HC-85084, N01-HC-85085] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-We have previously reported that several silent infarcts found on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were a risk factor for stroke. Several recent reports have shown that high white matter grade (WMG) and increasing WMG over time were risk factors for stroke. We tested the hypothesis that high WMG greater than or equal to2 was a predictor of risk for stroke, independent of other risk factors. Methods-We examined the extent of white matter hyperintensity on cranial MRI of 3293 participants from the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). The degree of white matter hyperintensity was graded from least severe (grade = 0) to most severe (grade = 9). Participants were followed-up for an average of 7 years for the occurrence of a stroke. Clinical stroke diagnoses were based on hospital records reviewed by an adjudication committee expert in stroke diagnosis. During this period, 278 strokes occurred. Results-The relative risk of stroke increased significantly as the WMG increased. The risk of stroke was 2.8% per year for participants with high WMG (grades greater than or equal to5), compared with only 0.6% for participants with grades 0 to 1. Conclusions-The risk of stroke with high WMG is independent of traditional stroke risk factors and persists when controlling for MRI infarcts, another subclinical imaging marker of cerebrovascular disease. Assessment of white matter disease may be valuable in assessing future risk of stroke.

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