Revista de neurologia · 1998
[Comparison of hypertensive and non-hypertensive lacunar infarcts].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Suárez P, Castillo J, Pardellas H, Vadillo J, Lema M, Noya M
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Arterial hypertension and hypohyalinosis of the arterias perforantes are said to be the commonest cause of lacunar infarcts, although other etiological factors and anatomo-pathological lesions are described more and more frequently. We designed a study to compare the clinical topographic and prognostic characteristics of patients with hypertensive and non-hypertensive lacunar infarcts.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected 51 patients with lacunar infarcts: in 23 (45%) arterial hypertension was the only etiological factor recognized. In 28 (55%) other risk factors (16 diabetes mellitus, 17 cardiopathy, 8 hyperlipemia, 13 cigarette smoking and 11 alcoholism) were seen. We evaluated the form of presentation, the type of infarct and whether this was associated with headache. The degree of defect was determined on admission using the Canadian scale. The size of the infarct was measured on CT or RM, using whichever measurement was greater. The evolution of the condition was determined on the Canadian scale and the index of Barthel after three months.
RESULTS: Age and sex distribution was similar to both groups. Motor hemiparesia was the commonest lacunar syndrome and the distribution was similar. There was no difference in form of onset, association with headache or neurological defect between the hypertensive and non-hypertensive lacunar infarcts. The topographical distribution, the presentation of single or multiple lesions, the size of the infarcts and the prognosis were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Lacunar infarcts, whether hypertensive or not, show no differences regarding clinical, neuro-radiological or evolutionary characteristics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: We selected 51 patients with lacunar infarcts: in 23 (45%) arterial hypertension was the only etiological factor recognized. In 28 (55%) other risk factors (16 diabetes mellitus, 17 cardiopathy, 8 hyperlipemia, 13 cigarette smoking and 11 alcoholism) were seen. We evaluated the form of presentation, the type of infarct and whether this was associated with headache. The degree of defect was determined on admission using the Canadian scale. The size of the infarct was measured on CT or RM, using whichever measurement was greater. The evolution of the condition was determined on the Canadian scale and the index of Barthel after three months.
RESULTS: Age and sex distribution was similar to both groups. Motor hemiparesia was the commonest lacunar syndrome and the distribution was similar. There was no difference in form of onset, association with headache or neurological defect between the hypertensive and non-hypertensive lacunar infarcts. The topographical distribution, the presentation of single or multiple lesions, the size of the infarcts and the prognosis were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Lacunar infarcts, whether hypertensive or not, show no differences regarding clinical, neuro-radiological or evolutionary characteristics.