↓ Skip to main content

Lipid Paradox in Statin-Naïve Acute Ischemic Stroke But Not Hemorrhagic Stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Lipid Paradox in Statin-Naïve Acute Ischemic Stroke But Not Hemorrhagic Stroke
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00541
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kai-Hung Cheng, Jr-Rung Lin, Craig S. Anderson, Wen-Ter Lai, Tsong-Hai Lee, the SRICHS Group, Tsong-Hai Lee, Yeu-Jhy Chang, Chien-Hung Chang, Hsiu-Chuan Wu, Kuo-Lun Huang, Ting-Yu Chang, Chi-Hung Liu, Chih-Kuang Cheng, Te-Fa Chiu, Chi-Ren Huang, Ho-Fai Wong, Cheng-Hong Toh, Tsung-I Peng, Wen-Yi Huang, Yu-Yi Chien, Kong Chung, Hsiang-Yun Lo, Yao-Liang Chen, Jiann-Der Lee, Meng Lee, Yen-Chu Huang, Shao-Wen Chou, Cheng-Ting Hsiao, Yuan-Hsiung Tsai, Chia-Wei Liou, Ku-Chou Chang, Hung-Sheng Lin, Teng-Yeow Tan, Ru-Huei Fu, Wei Hsi Chen, Chia-Te Kung, Wei-Che Lin

Abstract

Background: Low lipid level is associated with better cardiovascular outcome. However, lipid paradox indicating low lipid level having worse outcomes could be seen under acute injury in some diseases. The present study was designed to clarify the prognostic significance of acute-phase lipid levels within 1 day after admission for stroke on mortality in first-ever statin-naïve acute ischemic stroke (IS) and hemorrhagic stroke (HS). Methods: This observational study was conducted using the data collected from Stroke Registry In Chang-Gung Healthcare System (SRICHS) between 2009 and 2012. Patients with recurrent stroke, onset of symptoms >1 day, and history of the use of lipid-lowering agents prior to index stroke were excluded. Stroke was classified into IS and hypertension-related HS. The primary outcomes were 30-day and 1-year mortality identified by linkage to national death registry for date and cause of death. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of lipid profiles on admission with mortality. Results: Among the 18,268 admitted stroke patients, 3,746 IS and 465 HS patients were eligible for analysis. In IS, total cholesterol (TC) <163.5 mg/dL, triglyceride (TG) <94.5 mg/dL, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) <100 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) <130.5 mg/dL, and TC/HDL ratio <4.06 had significantly higher risk for 30-day/1-year mortality with hazard ratio (HR) of 2.05/1.37, 1.65/1.31, 1.68/1.38, 1.80/1.41, and 1.58/1.38, respectively, compared with high TC, TG, LDL, non-HDL-C, and TC/HDL ratio (p < 0.01 in all cases). In HS, lipid profiles were not associated with mortality, except HDL for 30-day mortality (p = 0.025) and high uric acid (UA) concentrations for 30-day and 1-year mortality (p = 0.002 and 0.012, respectively). High fasting glucose and high National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission were associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality in both IS and HS and low blood pressure only in IS (p < 0.05). Synergic effects on mortality were found when low lipids were incorporated with high fasting glucose, low blood pressure, and high NIHSS score in IS (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Lipid paradox showing low acute-phase lipid levels with high mortality could be seen in statin-naïve acute IS but not in HS. The mortality in IS was increased when low lipids were incorporated with high fasting glucose, low blood pressure, and high NIHSS score.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Researcher 3 19%
Student > Master 3 19%
Other 2 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 3 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,518,143
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,657
of 12,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#130,525
of 335,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#96
of 297 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,015 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 297 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.