Publication Cover
Neurological Research
A Journal of Progress in Neurosurgery, Neurology and Neurosciences
Volume 39, 2017 - Issue 1
692
Views
22
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research Paper

Risk factors between intracranial–extracranial atherosclerosis and anterior–posterior circulation stroke in ischaemic stroke

, , &
Pages 30-35 | Received 05 Mar 2016, Accepted 16 Oct 2016, Published online: 31 Oct 2016
 

Abstract

Objectives: Atherosclerosis is an important cause of stroke and remains a challenge for stroke prevention. Risk factors involved in atherosclerotic stroke and anterior and posterior circulation strokes (ACS and PCS, respectively) are different. The purpose of this study is to investigate differences in risk factors between intracranial and extracranial atherosclerosis (ICAS and ECAS), ACS and PCS, and ICAS/ECAS with ACS/PCS in a Chinese acute ischaemic stroke population.

Methods: We analysed 551 ischaemic stroke patients who had been enrolled between August 2005 and July 2008. First, risk factors were compared between non-atherosclerosis, ICAS, ECAS, and combined ICAS and ECAS groups. ICAS and ECAS were assessed with transcranial Doppler and carotid colour Doppler ultrasound, respectively. Second, risk factors were compared between ACS and PCS groups. Stroke lesion was assessed with magnetic resonance imaging. Third, risk factors were compared in ICAS/ECAS associated with ACS/PCS.

Results: The risk factor for ICAS was high diastolic blood pressure (OR, 1.075; 95% CI, 1.016–1.138; p = 0.013), and the risk factors for ECAS were age (OR, 1.113; 95% CI, 1.046–1.183; p = 0.001) and low density lipoprotein (OR, 1.450; 95% CI, 1.087–1.935; p = 0.012). Hypertension (OR, 1.090; 95% CI, 1.001–1.109; p = 0.027) was associated with PCS. Age (OR, 1.026; 95% CI, 1.011–1.128; p = 0.003), male gender (OR, 2.278; 95% CI, 1.481–3.258; p = 0.003) and age (OR, 1.067; 95% CI, 1.013–1.123; p = 0.014), scores of NIHSS (OR, 1.069; 95% CI, 1.012–1.130; p = 0.018) were risk factors for ICAS and ECAS with ACS, respectively.

Conclusion: Risk factors are different between ICAS and ECAS, ACS and PCS, and ICAS/ECAS with ACS/PCS. Thus, targeted strategies are needed to consider these differences to prevent, treat and manage these diseases.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 421.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.