Effect of smoking status on clinical outcomes after reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke
Résumé fourni par la source
Smoking has detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system; however, some studies have reported better clinical outcomes after thrombolysis for ischemic stroke in smokers than in nonsmokers, a phenomenon known as the smoking paradox. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the smoking paradox in patients with ischemic stroke receiving reperfusion therapy. Data were collected from a multicenter hospital-based acute stroke registry in Fukuoka, Japan. The 1148 study patients were categorized into current and noncurrent smokers. The association between smoking and clinical outcomes, including neurological improvement (≥ 4-point decrease in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale during hospitalization or 0 points at discharge) and good functional outcomes (modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2) at 3 months, was evaluated using logistic regression analysis and propensity score-matched analysis. Among the participants, 231 (20.1%) were current smokers. The odds ratios (ORs) of favorable outcomes after adjusting for potential confounders were not significantly increased in current smokers (OR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-1.22 for neurological improvement; OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65-1.38 for good functional outcome). No significant association was found in the propensity score-matched cohorts. Smoking cessation is strongly recommended since current smoking was not associated with better outcomes after reperfusion therapy.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Effect of smoking status on clinical outcomes after reperfusion therapy for acute ischemic stroke
- Date Crossref
- 23/04/2024
- Éditeur
- Springer Science and Business Media LLC
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.