Dataset Information

Long-term mortality and recurrent vascular events in lacunar versus non-lacunar ischaemic stroke: A cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Studies of differences in very long-term outcomes between people with lacunar/small vessel disease (SVD) versus other types of ischaemic stroke report mixed findings, with limited data on myocardial infarction (MI). We investigated whether long-term mortality, recurrent stroke and MI risks differ in people with versus without lacunar/SVD ischaemic stroke.

Patients and methods

We included first-ever strokes from a hospital-based stroke cohort study recruited in 2002-2005. We compared risks of death, recurrent stroke and MI during follow-up among lacunar/SVD versus other ischaemic stroke subtypes using Cox regression, adjusting for confounding factors.

Results

We included 812 participants, 283 with lacunar/SVD ischaemic stroke and 529 with other stroke. During a median of 9.2 years (interquartile range 3.1-11.8), there were 519 deaths, 181 recurrent strokes and 79 MIs. Lacunar/SVD stroke was associated with lower mortality (adjusted HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.95), largely due to markedly lower all-cause mortality in the first year. From one year onwards this difference attenuated, with all-cause mortality only slightly and not statistically significantly lower in the lacunar/SVD group (0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.05). There was no clear difference in risk of recurrent stroke (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61-1.15) or MI (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52-1.34).

Conclusion

Long-term risks of all-cause mortality, recurrent stroke and MI are similar, or only slightly lower, in patients with lacunar/SVD as compared to other ischaemic stroke. Patients and physicians should be as vigilant in optimising short- and long-term secondary prevention of vascular events in lacunar/SVD as for other stroke types.

SUBMITTER: Portegijs S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8915237 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Long-term mortality and recurrent vascular events in lacunar versus non-lacunar ischaemic stroke: A cohort study.

Portegijs Suzanne S Ong Ariel Y AY Halbesma Nynke N Hutchison Aidan A Sudlow Cathie Lm CL Jackson Caroline A CA

European stroke journal 20211230 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Studies of differences in very long-term outcomes between people with lacunar/small vessel disease (SVD) versus other types of ischaemic stroke report mixed findings, with limited data on myocardial infarction (MI). We investigated whether long-term mortality, recurrent stroke and MI risks differ in people with versus without lacunar/SVD ischaemic stroke.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>We included first-ever strokes from a hospital-based stroke cohort study recruited in 2002-20 ...[more]

PMID: 35287300

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Epidemiological studies have reported discrepant findings on the relationship between education level and outcomes after stroke. We aimed to prospectively investigate the relationship between education level and mortality, recurrent stroke, and cardiovascular events in Chinese patients with ischemic stroke. Methods and Results We included 3861 participants from the China Antihypertensive Trial in Acute Ischemic Stroke. Education level was categorized as illiteracy, primary school, middle school, and college. Study outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke-specific mortality, recurrent stroke, and cardiovascular events within 2 years after ischemic stroke. A meta-analysis was conducted to incorporate the results of the current study and previous other studies on the association of education level with outcomes after stroke. Within 2 years after ischemic stroke, there were 327 (8.5%) all-cause deaths, 264 (6.8%) stroke-specific deaths, 303 (7.9%) recurrent strokes, and 364 (9.4%) cardiovascular events, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier curves showed that patients with the lowest education level had the highest cumulative incidence rates of all-cause mortality, stroke-specific mortality, and cardiovascular events (log-rank P≤0.01). After adjusted for covariates, hazard ratios and 95% CIs of illiteracy versus college education were 2.79 (1.32-5.87) for all-cause mortality, 3.68 (1.51-8.98) for stroke-specific mortality, 2.82 (1.20-6.60) for recurrent stroke, and 3.46 (1.50-7.95) for cardiovascular events. The meta-analysis confirmed the significant association between education status and mortality after stroke (pooled relative risk for lowest versus highest education level, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.05-1.46]). Conclusions Low education level was significantly associated with increased risk of mortality, recurrent stroke, and cardiovascular events after ischemic stroke, independently of established risk factors. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01840072.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing body of evidence suggests that inflammation plays a key role in stroke, in particular stroke of atherosclerotic origin. Anti-inflammatory medications are a widely heterogeneous group of drugs that are used to suppress the innate inflammatory pathway and thus prevent persistent or recurrent inflammation. Anti-inflammatory agents have the potential to stabilise atherosclerotic plaques by impeding the inflammatory pathway. By targeting specific cytokines, the inflammatory pathway may be interrupted at various stages.ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of anti-inflammatory medications plus standard care versus standard care with or without placebo for prevention of vascular events (stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal cardiac arrest, unstable angina requiring revascularisation, vascular death) and all-cause mortality in people with a prior history of ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA).Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; last searched 29 May 2019); MEDLINE (1948 to 29 May 2019); Embase (1980 to 29 May 2019); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to 29 May 2019); and Scopus (1995 to 29 May 2019). In an effort to identify additional published, unpublished, and ongoing trials, we searched several grey literature sources (last searched 30 May 2019). We incorporated all identified studies into the results section. We applied no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.Selection criteriaWe considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials that evaluated anti-inflammatory medications for prevention of major cardiovascular events following ischaemic stroke or TIA.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed for inclusion titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search. Two review authors independently reviewed full-text articles for inclusion in this review. We planned to assess risk of bias and to apply the GRADE method.Main resultsWe identified no studies that met the inclusion criteria.Authors' conclusionsThere is currently a paucity of evidence on the use of anti-inflammatory medications for prevention of major cardiovascular events following ischaemic stroke or TIA. RCTs are needed to assess whether use of anti-inflammatory medications in this setting is beneficial.

Project description:BackgroundStroke is an important cause of death and disability worldwide. Since high blood pressure is an important risk factor for stroke and stroke recurrence, drugs that lower blood pressure might play an important role in secondary stroke prevention.ObjectivesTo investigate whether blood pressure-lowering drugs (BPLDs) started at least 48 hours after the index event are effective for the prevention of recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Secondary objectives were to identify subgroups of people in which BPLDs are effective, and to investigate the optimum systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia.Search methodsIn August 2017, we searched the Trials Registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Hypertension Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN Registry, Stroke Trials Registry, Trials Central, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BPLDs started at least 48 hours after stroke or TIA.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, selected eligible trials, extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. If necessary, we contacted the principal investigators or corresponding authors for additional data.Main resultsWe included 11 studies involving a total of 38,742 participants: eight studies compared BPLDs versus placebo or no treatment (35,110 participants), and three studies compared different systolic blood pressure targets (3632 participants). The risk of bias varied greatly between included studies. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of BPLDs were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.93; 8 RCTs; 35,110 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; 4 RCTs; 28,630 participants; high-quality evidence) for major vascular event, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 2 RCTs; 6671 participants; high-quality evidence) for dementia. We mainly observed a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in the subgroup of participants using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or a diuretic (I2 statistic for subgroup differences 72.1%; P = 0.006). The pooled RRs of intensive blood pressure-lowering were 0.80 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.00) for recurrent stroke and 0.58 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.46) for major vascular event.Authors' conclusionsOur results support the use of BPLDs in people with stroke or TIA for reducing the risk of recurrent stroke. Current evidence is primarily derived from trials studying an ACE inhibitor or a diuretic. No definite conclusions can be drawn from current evidence regarding an optimal systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA.

Project description:BackgroundMost ischaemic strokes are caused by blockage of a cerebral artery by a thrombus. Intravenous administration of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator given within 4.5 hours is now standard treatment for this condition. Percutaneous vascular interventions use an intra-arterial, mechanical approach for thrombus disruption or removal (thrombectomy). Recent randomised trials indicate that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to usual care (usual care usually included intravenous thrombolysis). However, intravenous thrombolysis was usually given in both arms of the trial and there was a lack of direct comparison of percutaneous vascular interventions with intravenous thrombolysis.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous vascular interventions compared with intravenous thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last search: August 2018). In addition, in September 2017, we searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Science Citation Index; and Stroke Trials Registry, and US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that directly compared a percutaneous vascular intervention with intravenous thrombolytic treatment in people with acute ischaemic stroke.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors applied the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We obtained both published and unpublished data. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsWe included four trials with 450 participants. Data on functional outcome and death at end of follow-up were available for 443 participants from three trials. Compared with intravenous thrombolytic therapy, percutaneous vascular intervention did not improve the proportion of participants with good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale score 0 to 2, risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.25, P = 0.92). The quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). At the end of follow-up, there was a non-significant increase in the proportion of participants who died in the percutaneous vascular intervention group (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.14, P = 0.21). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). There was no difference in the proportion of participants with symptomatic intracranial haemorrhages between the intervention and control groups (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.95, P = 0.97). The quality of evidence was low (wide confidence interval). Data on vascular status (recanalisation rate) were only available for seven participants from one trial; we considered this inadequate for statistical analyses.Authors' conclusionsThe present review directly compared intravenous thrombolytic treatment with percutaneous vascular interventions for ischaemic stroke. We found no evidence from RCTs that percutaneous vascular interventions are superior to intravenous thrombolytic treatment with respect to functional outcome. Quality of evidence was low (outcome assessment was blinded, but not the treating physician or participants). New trials with adequate sample sizes are warranted because of the rapid development of new techniques and devices for such interventions.

Dataset Information

Long-term mortality and recurrent vascular events in lacunar versus non-lacunar ischaemic stroke: A cohort study.

Introduction

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Long-term mortality and recurrent vascular events in lacunar versus non-lacunar ischaemic stroke: A cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets