4.7 Article

Does leukoaraiosis predict morbidity and mortality?

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 90-94

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.54.1.90

关键词

leukoaraiosis; stroke; gait; cerebral ischemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To determine whether leukoaraiosis predicts morbidity and mortality. Background: Gait disturbance and leukoaraiosis both are common in the elderly. Gait disturbance predicts mortality. Leukoaraiosis may be a unifying factor to both gait disturbance and mortality. Methods: We followed 221 patients prospectively evaluated for severity of neurologic deficits by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stroke scale and for leukoaraiosis in seven brain regions by CT, graded as absent (n = 119, 54%), mild (in at least one of seven brain regions; n = 54, 24%), or severe (present in all seven brain regions; n = 48, 22%). Pneumonia (n = 27, 12%), falls resulting in fracture requiring hospitalization (n = 7, 3%), and death (n = 38, 17%) were end points. Results: Severe leukoaraiosis predicted death (Cox hazard ratio [HR] = 2.91; 95% CI = 1.5 - 5.6), pneumonia (HR = 5.1; 95% CI = 2.4 - 10.9), death from pneumonia (HR = 8.3; 95% CI 1.5 - 46), and falls (HR = 6.8; 95% CI = 1.5 - 30). Severe leukoaraiosis predicted a combined end point of death, pneumonia, and falls (HR = 3.5; 95% CI = 2 - 6). Other predictors were NIH stroke scale score, age, smoking, diabetes, gait score, and referral diagnosis of either dementia or Parkinsonism. Severe leukoaraiosis remained a predictor after adjustment for these other factors (HR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2 - 3.9), but was borderline after adjusting for gait (HR = 1.96; 95% CI = 0.97 - 3.94; p = 0.061). The combination of severe leukoaraiosis and gait disturbance had the highest risk (HR = 4.4; 95% CI = 2.4 - 7.9). Conclusion: Severe leukoaraiosis predicts morbidity and mortality independently of preexisting neurologic deficits. The combination of leukoaraiosis and gait disturbance carries a poor prognosis.

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