4.2 Article

Prognosis of 908 patients with intracerebral hemorrhage in Chengdu, Southwest of China

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 127, Issue 7, Pages 586-591

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00207454.2016.1216414

Keywords

intracerebral hemorrhage; China; prognosis; poor outcomes; follow-up

Categories

Funding

  1. National Key Technology R&D Programme for the 12th Five-year Plan of Peoples Republic of China [2011BAI08B05]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371282, 81400964]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and purpose: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is the deadliest, most disable and least treatable form of acute cerebral accident. Prognostic risk factors of ICH are not yet fully identified. This study investigated the possible clinical factors leading to poor outcomes in patients with ICH, which can be used to guide clinical treatment and predict prognosis. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with ICH who were admitted within 7 d of stroke onset from January 2012 to April 2014. The prognostic factors of patients with ICH were analyzed in univariate analyses and logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 908 consecutive patients with ICH (mean age, 57.87 +/- 13.92 years) were finally included, of which 616 patients (67.8%) were male. 59.5%, 54.5% and 52.2% patients with ICH had poor outcomes (death/disability) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. Stroke severity and stroke-related complications during hospitalization were independently associated with poor outcomes both at 3 and 12 months. In addition, hyperglycemia, hematocrit and blood urea nitrogen on admission were independently associated with poor outcomes at three months. Conclusion: This study found that severity of ICH and stroke-related complications were independent predictors of poor outcomes at three months and one year after ICH. Thereby, it highlights the importance of understanding the role of clinical features in ICH prognostic evaluation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available