Long-term neurological and psychiatric outcomes after paediatric arterial ischaemic stroke and cerebral sinovenous thrombosis.
Jeanette Soenderlyng Springer, Søren Paaske Johnsen, Charlotte Olesen and 2 others
PMID 41681082WHAT IT FOUND
Children with first-time stroke face much higher long-term risks of paralysis, epilepsy, vision problems, and mental disorders than peers.
Most survivors had at least one neurological or psychiatric diagnosis. This requires sustained multidisciplinary follow-up.
Key findings
0173.7% of children with cerebral thrombosis had at least one adverse neurological or psychiatric outcome registered during long-term follow-up.
02The hazard ratio for paralysis was 65.8 in patients with previous arterial ischaemic stroke or cerebral sinovenous thrombosis compared with the general population.
03All-cause mortality was significantly higher in the stroke group (11.4%) than in the general population (0.7%) at 23 years 8 months follow-up.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used register-based data, so it could not assess the severity of outcomes. The CSVT group was relatively small (n=40), so subgroup analyses for this condition should be interpreted cautiously. Diagnoses made by general practitioners are not recorded in the national patient registry, though the authors argue this likely did not affect the severe outcomes studied. The study could not analyse the impact of timing of stroke (e.g., antenatal vs. postnatal) due to small subgroup sizes.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The research was funded by several Danish foundations and hospital departments, including Aase og Ejnar Danielsens Fond and the Paediatric Department at Aalborg University Hospital.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume these hazard ratios reflect current clinical practice or outcome severity. The study covers a long historical period (1994-2006 diagnoses) and relies on registry codes that do not capture how mild or severe the impairments were, nor the specific rehabilitation received.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →