4.7 Article

Apathy in acute stroke patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY
卷 19, 期 2, 页码 291-297

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03508.x

关键词

acute; apathy; cognition; denial; depression; motivation; stroke

资金

  1. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/22282/2005]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/22282/2005] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and purpose: Apathy is a frequent disturbance in stroke patients. The aim of this casecontrol study was to elucidate whether apathy: (i) was secondary to stroke or related to hospitalization, (ii) was related to thalamic and striatocapsular stroke lesions, (iii) was independent from cognitive impairment and depression in the acute phase of stroke, (iv) was associated with clinical and demographical variables and (v) was associated with a worse functional outcome at discharge. Methods: We assessed a sample of 94 consecutive patients with an acute (<= 4 days) stroke (22 intracerebral haemorrhages, 72 cerebral infarcts), and a control group of 50 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with the 10-item Apathy Evaluation Scale-Clinical. We related apathy with cognition (MMSE), depression (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale) and with outcome (modified Rankin Scale). Results: Apathy was present in 36 (38.3%) acute stroke patients but was also frequent in patients with acute coronary syndrome (24%). Stroke patients were more inaccurate in understanding their problems than patients with acute coronary syndrome (P = 0.005). Logistic regression identified cerebral haemorrhage (OR = 3.5), low educational level (OR = 4.7) and a trend of right hemispherical lesion (OR = 3.0) as independent predictors for apathy (R-2 = 32.3%). Cognitive impairment and depression were not associated to apathy. Apathy was associated with a worse outcome (P = 0.03). Conclusion: Apathy was frequent in acute stroke patients, and it was predicted by acute intracerebral haemorrhage and right hemispherical acute stroke lesion.

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