PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
July 1, 1994Stroke195 citationsOpen Access

Prognosis of young adults with ischemic stroke. A long-term follow-up study assessing recurrent vascular events and functional outcome in the Iowa Registry of Stroke in Young Adults.

View Full Paper
LKL. Jaap KappelleHAHarold P. AdamsMHMarta L. Heffner

Key Points

  • To evaluate the long-term prognosis of young adults with ischemic stroke, focusing on recurrent vascular events and functional outcomes.
  • Follow-up assessments conducted via questionnaires, examinations, and medical records for 296 young adults aged 15 to 45 years.
  • Collected data included risk factors, stroke etiology, treatment, and outcomes using various scales like the Glasgow Outcome Scale and SF-36 Health Status questionnaire.
  • Outcomes were analyzed over a mean follow-up period of 6.0 years.
  • Mortality was higher among patients with strokes from large-vessel causes (RR, 1.7; 95% CL, 1.0 to 2.7) compared to those with other etiologies (RR, 0.1; CL, 0 to 0.6).
  • Recurrent strokes occurred in 9% of patients, with 39% of these recurrent strokes being fatal.
  • Only 49% of survivors maintained independence without significant health interventions or disabilities, and 42% returned to work.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Information about the long-term prognosis of young adults with ischemic stroke is limited. Therefore, we performed a follow-up assessment of 296 patients with ischemic stroke who are enrolled in the Iowa Registry of Stroke in Young Adults. We studied young adults (age, 15 to 45 years) who were referred to a tertiary medical center for management of ischemic stroke between July 1, 1977, and January 1, 1992. METHODS: Follow-up assessments were performed by means of questionnaires, examinations, telephone interviews, review of medical records, and reports from personal physicians. Data about risk factors, coincident medical diseases, etiology of stroke, treatment, recurrent stroke, other vascular events, and deaths were collected. Outcomes were rated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale, Barthel Index, National Institutes of Health stroke scale, and the Mini-Mental State Examination. Quality of life was assessed with the SF-36 Health Status questionnaire. RESULTS: Follow-up information about the status of 10 patients was limited except that they were alive. Twenty-one patients (7%) died as the result of their initial stroke, and another 40 patients (14%) died during a mean follow-up of 6.0 years. None of the patients aged 25 years or younger at the time of stroke died during follow-up. Mortality was significantly higher among patients who had a stroke secondary to large-vessel stroke and it was significantly lower in patients with stroke of unknown etiology than in patients with stroke of other causes (relative risk RR, 1.7; 95% confidence limits CL, 1.0 to 2.7; and RR, 0.1; CL, 0 to 0.6; respectively). Recurrent strokes occurred in 23 patients (9%) and were fatal in 9. Another 37 patients were treated by a cardiologist during follow-up; 3 had had a myocardial infarct. Fourteen additional patients needed major vascular surgery. Outcomes with the Glasgow Outcome Scale and Barthel Index were generally favorable. Still, only 49% of patients were still alive, were not disabled, had not suffered from recurrent vascular events, or had not undergone major vascular surgery. Only 42% of survivors had returned to work. A majority of survivors reported emotional, social, or physical residuals that lessened the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The risks of recurrent vascular events in young adults who have had ischemic stroke are considerable. In addition, a majority of survivors will have residual emotional, social, or physical impairments that hamper employment or lower the quality of life. Further research on the quality of life for young adults who survive stroke is needed.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kappelle et al. (1994) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0c7545e28175e95a235881https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.25.7.1360
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper