4.1 Article

Association of Frontal Subcortical Circuits Infarcts in Poststroke Depression: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study of 591 Chinese Patients With Ischemic Stroke

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0891988710392375

关键词

depression; stroke; fronto-subcortical; infarct; Chinese; magnetic resonance imaging

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite extensive research into poststroke depression (PSD), the role played by lesion location in the pathogenesis of PSD remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to estimate the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) correlates of PSD in Chinese patients with first or recurrent stroke. A total of 591 patients with acute ischemic stroke admitted to the acute stroke unit of a university-affiliated regional hospital in Hong Kong were recruited. A psychiatrist assessed all the patients 3 months after the stroke. The psychiatrist used the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, fourth edition (DSM-IV) to confirm whether the patients met the criteria of a depressive disorder. In addition, a host of demographic, clinical, and radiological variables were examined. A tota; of 475 and 116 patients had first and recurrent strokes, respectively. In all, 75 (12.7%) patients received a diagnosis of PSD. In univariate analysis of the MRI findings, the presence of infarcts in the frontal subcortical circuits ([FSC], 66.7% vs 53.3%) was significantly associated with PSD (P = .03) compared to the patients without PSD. The FSC infarct-PSD association remained significant (odds ratio = 2.6) in subsequent logistic regression analysis after adjusting for gender, history of depression, neurological impairment, level of social support, and major life events. In conclusion, FSC infarcts are independent predictors of PSD. Further work is needed to clarify whether these infarcts have an impact on the clinical presentation, treatment responses, and prognosis of PSD.

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

4.1
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