Impact of Applying NINDS-AIREN Criteria of Probable Vascular Dementia to Clinical and Radiological Characteristics of a Stroke Cohort with DementiaTang W.K.a · Chan S.S.M.a · Chiu H.F.K.a,d · Ungvari G.S.a · Wong K.S.b · Kwok T.C.Y.b · Mok V.b · Wong K.T.c · Richards P.S.c · Ahuja A.T.c
aDepartment of Psychiatry, bDepartment of Medicine and Geriatrics, and cDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Organ Imaging, Chinese University of Hong Kong, and dJockey Club Centre for Positive Ageing, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Do you have an account?
- Rent for 48h to view
- Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
- Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
- Printing and saving restrictions apply
Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00
Article / Publication Details
Background: There are no data concerning the relative representation of clinical vascular risk factors and radiological lesions in cases that have been ruled in and ruled out for probable vascular dementia (VaD) according to NINDS-AIREN criteria. Methods: Three months after their index stroke, a psychiatrist interviewed patients and made a diagnosis of VaD according to both DSM-IV and NINDS-AIREN criteria for probable VaD. Patients who fulfilled the DSM-IV criteria for VaD were divided into two groups: those who were ruled in and ruled out according to NINDS-AIREN criteria as probable VaD. Demographic characteristics, vascular risk factors, clinical features of the index stroke and radiological findings were then compared between the two groups. Results: Of the 297 patients screened, 56 (18.8%) had a DSM-IV diagnosis of dementia. Among these demented patients, 55 (98.2%) and 22 (39.3%) fulfilled DSM-IV and NINDS-AIREN diagnosis of VaD, respectively. The concordance and level of agreement (kappa statistic) between DSM-IV and NINDS-AIREN diagnoses were 40% and 0.02, respectively. Reasons of failure to meet NINDS-AIREN criteria included the lack of temporal relationship between dementia and stroke (n = 20), the absence of focal neurological signs and/or radiological evidence of stroke (n = 6) and both of the above (n = 7). There was no significant difference between the above two groups in terms of demographic data, features of index stroke, vascular risk factors and CT scan findings, except that leukoaraiosis (p = 0.021) and bilateral lesions (p = 0.015) were more frequent in subjects diagnosed according to NINDS-AIREN criteria of probable VaD. The difference between these two groups with respect to the number of lesions was borderline for significance (p = 0.052). Conclusions: The use of NINDS-AIREN criteria for VaD for case selection in poststroke dementia research may exclude a number of subjects with VaD.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
Article / Publication Details
Copyright / Drug Dosage / DisclaimerCopyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.