Paramdeep Kaur1, Shweta J Verma2, Gagandeep Singh3, Rajinder Bansal3, Birinder S Paul3, Monika Singla3, Shavinder Singh4, Clarence J Samuel4, Meenakshi Sharma5, Jeyaraj D Pandian2. 1. Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India. 3. Department of Neurology, Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana, India. 4. Departments of Community Medicine, Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, India. 5. Division of Non Communicable Diseases, ICMR, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical profile, risk factors, type and outcome of stroke patients in urban and rural areas of Punjab, India. METHODS: The primary data source was from the Ludhiana urban population-based stroke registry. The data of first-ever stroke patients with age ≥18 years were collected using WHO stepwise approach from all hospitals, general practitioners, physiotherapy and scan centres between 26 March 2011 and 25 March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 4989 patients were included and out of 4989 patients, 3469 (69%) were from urban areas. Haemorrhagic stroke was seen more in rural as compared to urban regions (urban 1104 (32%) versus rural 552 (36%); p = 0.01). There were significant differences seen in stroke risk factors; hypertension (urban 1923 (84%) versus rural 926 (89%); p = 0.001) and hyperlipidaemia (urban 397 (18%) versus rural 234 (23%); p = 0.001) between two groups. In the multivariable analysis the rural patients were more likely to be younger (age < 40 years) (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.24-2.68; p = 0.002), Sikhs (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.26-5.22; p = 0.009), farmers (OR: 9.41; 95% CI: 5.36-16.50; p < 0.001), housewives (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.45-5.06; p = 0.002), and consumed alcohol (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.06; p = 0.001) as compared to urban patients. In addition, use of imaging was higher in rural patients (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.06-3.74; p = 0.03) as compared to urban patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients, rural and urban differences were seen in risk factors and type of stroke. Stroke prevention strategies need to take into consideration these factors including regional sociocultural practices.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to compare the clinical profile, risk factors, type and outcome of stroke patients in urban and rural areas of Punjab, India. METHODS: The primary data source was from the Ludhiana urban population-based stroke registry. The data of first-ever stroke patients with age ≥18 years were collected using WHO stepwise approach from all hospitals, general practitioners, physiotherapy and scan centres between 26 March 2011 and 25 March 2013. RESULTS: A total of 4989 patients were included and out of 4989 patients, 3469 (69%) were from urban areas. Haemorrhagic stroke was seen more in rural as compared to urban regions (urban 1104 (32%) versus rural 552 (36%); p = 0.01). There were significant differences seen in stroke risk factors; hypertension (urban 1923 (84%) versus rural 926 (89%); p = 0.001) and hyperlipidaemia (urban 397 (18%) versus rural 234 (23%); p = 0.001) between two groups. In the multivariable analysis the rural patients were more likely to be younger (age < 40 years) (OR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.24-2.68; p = 0.002), Sikhs (OR: 2.57; 95% CI: 1.26-5.22; p = 0.009), farmers (OR: 9.41; 95% CI: 5.36-16.50; p < 0.001), housewives (OR: 2.71; 95% CI: 1.45-5.06; p = 0.002), and consumed alcohol (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.19-2.06; p = 0.001) as compared to urban patients. In addition, use of imaging was higher in rural patients (OR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.06-3.74; p = 0.03) as compared to urban patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients, rural and urban differences were seen in risk factors and type of stroke. Stroke prevention strategies need to take into consideration these factors including regional sociocultural practices.
Entities:
Keywords:
India; population based; registry; rural; stroke; urban
Authors: Deekshanti Narayan; Subhash Kaul; K Ravishankar; T Suryaprabha; V C S Srinivasarao Bandaru; K Rukmini Mridula; S A Jabeen; Suvarna Alladi; A K Meena; Rupam Borgohain Journal: Neurol India Date: 2012 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Clara K Chow; Koon K Teo; Sumathy Rangarajan; Shofiqul Islam; Rajeev Gupta; Alvaro Avezum; Ahmad Bahonar; Jephat Chifamba; Gilles Dagenais; Rafael Diaz; Khawar Kazmi; Fernando Lanas; Li Wei; Patricio Lopez-Jaramillo; Lu Fanghong; Noor Hassim Ismail; Thandi Puoane; Annika Rosengren; Andrzej Szuba; Ahmet Temizhan; Andy Wielgosz; Rita Yusuf; Afzalhussein Yusufali; Martin McKee; Lisheng Liu; Prem Mony; Salim Yusuf Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sapna E Sridharan; J P Unnikrishnan; Sajith Sukumaran; P N Sylaja; S Dinesh Nayak; P Sankara Sarma; Kurupath Radhakrishnan Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-02-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Valery L Feigin; Mohammad H Forouzanfar; Rita Krishnamurthi; George A Mensah; Myles Connor; Derrick A Bennett; Andrew E Moran; Ralph L Sacco; Laurie Anderson; Thomas Truelsen; Martin O'Donnell; Narayanaswamy Venketasubramanian; Suzanne Barker-Collo; Carlene M M Lawes; Wenzhi Wang; Yukito Shinohara; Emma Witt; Majid Ezzati; Mohsen Naghavi; Christopher Murray Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Stephanie P Jones; Kamran Baqai; Andrew Clegg; Rachel Georgiou; Cath Harris; Emma-Joy Holland; Yogeshwar Kalkonde; Catherine E Lightbody; Pallab K Maulik; Padma Mv Srivastava; Jeyaraj D Pandian; Patel Kulsum; P N Sylaja; Caroline L Watkins; Maree L Hackett Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2021-07-02 Impact factor: 5.266