Why the study?
Do women with first-ever stroke have different risk factors, etiologies, and functional outcomes compared to men?
Do women with first-ever stroke have different risk factors, etiologies, and functional outcomes compared to men?
Women experiencing their first stroke are more likely to have a cardiogenic etiology (such as atrial fibrillation) and suffer worse short- and long-term functional outcomes than men.
Associated with higher cardiogenic stroke and worse outcomes in women; hypothesis-generating for sex-specific strategies pending prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: Recently, many studies regarding stroke in men and women showing differences in its incidence and course have been conducted, but the cause of sex differences remains unclear.AIM: The objective of study was to assess the incidence of selected stroke risk factors, the course and long-term consequences of first-ever stroke in women.MATERIAL AND METHODS: 304 women and 207 men with first-ever stroke were studied. We assessed: age at which stroke occurred; presence of hypertension, lipid disorders, coronary disease, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, carotid/cerebral artery stenoses; stroke aetiology, state on days 1 (NIHSS) and 90 (Rankin).RESULTS: The age at which first-ever stroke occurred was higher in women (p = 0.030). Atrial fibrillation occurred more frequently in them (p = 0.0007). Hypertension and coronary disease occurred less commonly in women under 55 (p = 0.038 and 0.035 respectively). In women < 55, lipid disorders (p = 0.004) and diabetes (p = 0.018) were observed more rarely, they were more common in > 55 group (p = 0.042 and 0.023). In women, carotid artery stenoses were less common (p = 0.07), cardiogenic stroke more common (p = 0.001). They were in worse neurological state both on day 1 (p = 0.001) and 90 (p = 0.033) of disease.CONCLUSIONS: Cardiogenic stroke is significantly more common in women. Women exhibit more severe post-stroke disability, resulting in more frequent use of institutional care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lasek‐Bal et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: