Pure motor stroke from presumed lacunar infarct: Long-term prognosis for survival and risk of recurrent stroke

56Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Purpose - A low risk of recurrent stroke and death after lacunar infarction has previously been reported, but follow-up has been limited to ≤5 years. Methods - One hundred eighty patients with pure motor stroke, collected between 1983 and 1986 from a hospital-based stroke registry, were followed up until at least 10 years after the index stroke. Two patients were lost to follow-up. Survival status was determined from the official population registry and compared with survival rates of the Swedish population, matched for age and sex. Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify independent prognostic predictors. Results - During follow-up 106 (60%) of the 178 patients died, most commonly as a result of coronary heart disease. During the first 5 years after the stroke, survival rates were similar to those of the general population. Beyond this time the risk of death was increased among patients with pure motor stroke, with an excess of 10 to 15 percent units compared with the general population. Independent determinants for death were age (P<0.01), male sex (P<0.01), and nonuse of acetylsalicylic acid (P=0.02). Recurrent stroke occurred in 42 (23.5%) of the patients, corresponding to an annual risk of 2.4%. Hypertension (P=0.025) and diabetes (P=0.024) were independent risk factors for recurrent stroke. Conclusions - For the first few years after lacunar infarct, the risk of death was similar to that of the general population, but later a clear excess of death was observed. The long-term prognosis in lacunar infarction appears less favorable than previously reported.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Staaf, G., Lindgren, A., & Norrving, B. (2001). Pure motor stroke from presumed lacunar infarct: Long-term prognosis for survival and risk of recurrent stroke. Stroke, 32(11), 2592–2596. https://doi.org/10.1161/hs1101.098355

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free