Treatment and outcomes of working aged adults with stroke : results from a national prospective registry

Natasha A. Lannin, Craig S. Anderson, Joosup Kim, Monique Kilkenny, Julie Bernhardt, Christopher Levi, Helen M. Dewey, Christopher Bladin, Peter Hand, Helen Castley, Kelvin Hill, Steven Faux, Rohan Grimley, Brenda Grabsch, Sandy Middleton, Geoffrey Donnan, Dominique A. Cadilhac

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Background: Given the potential differences in etiology and impact, the treatment and outcome of younger patients (aged 18-64 years) require examination separately to older adults (aged >= 65 years) who experience acute stroke. Methods: Data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (2010-2015) including demographic and clinical characteristics, provision of evidence-based therapies and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) post-stroke was used. Descriptive statistics and multilevel regression models were used for group comparisons. Results: Compared to older patients (age >= 65 years) among 26,220 registrants, 6,526 (25%) younger patients (age 18-64 years) were more often male (63 vs. 51%; p < 0.001), born in Australia (70 vs. 63%; p < 0.001), more often discharged home from acute care (56 vs. 38%; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive antihypertensive medication (61 vs. 73%; p < 0.001). Younger patients had a 74% greater odds of having lower HRQoL compared to an equivalent aged-matched general population (adjusted OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.56-1.93, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Younger stroke patients exhibited distinct differences from their older counterparts with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics, prescription of antihypertensive medications and residual health status.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-120
Number of pages8
JournalNeuroepidemiology
Volume49
Issue number45385
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Treatment and outcomes of working aged adults with stroke : results from a national prospective registry'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this