国家神经系统疾病临床医学研究中心数据管理与共享系统

Data Management And Sharing System of China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases

《国家中心数据管理与共享系统操作说明书 —— 研究者部分》

Recurrent Stroke in Minor Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack With Metabolic Syndrome and/or Diabetes Mellitus

第一作者：Chen, Weiqi

通讯作者：Wang, Yilong Wang, Yongjun

diabetes mellitus metabolic syndrome prognosis str

基本信息

  • 负责人：Chen, Weiqi
  • 数据来源： CHANCE
  • 论文编号：OTHERS20190478
  • 发表时间：2017-06-01

2017-06-01

已发表文章

发表杂志：Journal of the American Heart Association

发表类型: Original Research

影响因子(IF): 5.501

PMID: 28572281 Pubmed原文链接 全文下载

主要研究背景及目的

方法

In total, 3044 patients were included. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: neither, METS only, DM only, or both. METS was defined using the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) and International Diabetes Foundation (IDF) definitions. The primary outcome was new stroke (including ischemic and hemorrhagic) at 90 days. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess the relationship of METS and DM status to the risk of recurrent stroke adjusted for potential covariates. Using the CDS criteria of METS, 53.2%, 17.2%, 19.8%, and 9.8% of patients were diagnosed as neither, METS only, DM only, and both, respectively. After 90 days of follow-up, there were 299 new strokes (293 ischemic, 6 hemorrhagic). Patients with DM only (16.1% versus 6.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.89-3.39) and both (17.1% versus 6.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.76, 95% CI 1.98-3.86) had significantly increased rates of recurrent stroke. No interaction effect of antiplatelet therapy by different METS or DM status for the risk of recurrent stroke (P=0.82 for interaction in the fully adjusted model of CDS) was observed. Using the METS (IDF) criteria demonstrated similar results.

结论

Concurrent METS and DM was associated with an increased risk of recurrent stroke in patients with minor stroke and transient ischemic attack.

主要结果

In total, 3044 patients were included. Patients were stratified into 4 groups: neither, METS only, DM only, or both. METS was defined using the Chinese Diabetes Society (CDS) and International Diabetes Foundation (IDF) definitions. The primary outcome was new stroke (including ischemic and hemorrhagic) at 90 days. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess the relationship of METS and DM status to the risk of recurrent stroke adjusted for potential covariates. Using the CDS criteria of METS, 53.2%, 17.2%, 19.8%, and 9.8% of patients were diagnosed as neither, METS only, DM only, and both, respectively. After 90 days of follow-up, there were 299 new strokes (293 ischemic, 6 hemorrhagic). Patients with DM only (16.1% versus 6.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.50, 95% CI 1.89-3.39) and both (17.1% versus 6.8%; adjusted hazard ratio 2.76, 95% CI 1.98-3.86) had significantly increased rates of recurrent stroke. No interaction effect of antiplatelet therapy by different METS or DM status for the risk of recurrent stroke (P=0.82 for interaction in the fully adjusted model of CDS) was observed. Using the METS (IDF) criteria demonstrated similar results.