中国卒中杂志 ›› 2017, Vol. 12 ›› Issue (01): 73-79.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1673-5765.2017.01.015

• 综述 • 上一篇    下一篇

缺血性卒中危险因素及4种卒中风险评分中的性别差异

薛洋,钟镝,李国忠   

  1. 150001 哈尔滨哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院神经内科
  • 收稿日期:2016-05-30 出版日期:2017-01-20 发布日期:2017-01-20
  • 通讯作者: 李国忠hydlgz1962@163.com

Gender Differences in Risk Factors and Four Risk Scores of Ischemic Stroke

  • Received:2016-05-30 Online:2017-01-20 Published:2017-01-20

摘要:

卒中的发生风险存在性别差异,可能与某些生理因素及男女对同一危险因素体现的卒中 易感性不同有关。常用卒中风险评分多基于危险因素制定,但大多未纳入性别因素,可能造成其预测 效度出现性别偏倚。本文就缺血性卒中的危险因素及4种典型卒中风险评分[CHADS2(Congestive heart failure,Hypertension,Age≥75,Diabetes,Stroke)、CHA2DS2-VASc(Congestive heart failure,Hypertension, Age≥75,Diabetes,Stroke,Vascular disease,Age 65~74,Sex category)、艾森卒中风险(Essen Stroke Risk Score,ESRS)评分、ABCD2(Age,Blood pressure,Clinical features,Duration,Diabetes)评分]预测效 度的性别差异予以综述。

文章导读: 男女对同一危险因素的卒中易感性不同,常用卒中风险评分的预测效度可能存在性别差异。

关键词: 缺血性卒中; 危险因素; 评分; 性别差异; 综述

Abstract:

Gender differences lie in the occurrence risk of stroke, which is associated with some physiological factors, as well as different stroke susceptibilities to the same risk factor between male and female. Frequently used stroke risk scores are mostly based on risk factors, whereas gender has not been included in most scores, which might lead to gender bias of predictive validity. Therefore, this paper reviews gender differences in risk factors and evaluative validity of the four typical risk predictive scores of ischemic stroke [including CHADS2 (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75, Diabetes, Stroke) score, CHA2DS2-VASc (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age≥75, Diabetes, Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65-74, Sex category) score, Essen Stroke Risk score (ESRS) and ABCD2 (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration, Diabetes) score].

Key words: Ischemic stroke; Risk factor; Score; Gender differences; Review