4.3 Article

Hospital Admissions for Ischemic Stroke: Does Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution Interact with Major Risk Factors?

期刊

CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASES
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 284-293

出版社

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000322600

关键词

Ischemic stroke; Air pollution; Diabetes mellitus; Long-term exposure; Effect modification

资金

  1. Emissionsforskningsprogrammet
  2. Medical Faculty at Lund University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim was to investigate whether the effects of major risk factors for ischemic stroke were modified by long-term exposure to air pollution in Scania, southern Sweden. Methods: Cases were defined as first-ever ischemic strokes in patients born between 1923 and 1965 during 2001-2006 (n = 7,244). Data were collected from The Swedish National Stroke Register (Riks-stroke) and the Malmo and Lund Stroke Registers. Population controls were matched on age and sex. Modeled outdoor annual mean NOx concentrations were used as proxy for long-term exposure to air pollution. Heterogeneity across NOx categories was tested for smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation and physical inactivity. Data were analyzed as case-control data and to some extent as case-only data, with logistic regression analysis. Results: The case-control odds ratios for ischemic stroke in association with diabetes were 1.3 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-1.6] and 2.0 (95% CI: 1.2-3.4) in the lowest and highest NOx category, respectively (p value for testing heterogeneity across the categories = 0.056). The case-only approach gave further support for the risk associated with diabetes to increase with NOx (p for trend = 0.033). We observed no main effect of mean NOx or any conclusive effect modifications between NOx and smoking, hypertension, atrial fibrillation or physical inactivity. Conclusions: In a low-level air pollution area, the risk for ischemic stroke associated with diabetes seemed to increase with long-term exposure to air pollution. Copyright (C) 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel

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

4.3
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