Influence of location of paresis on site of pneumonia in stroke
- 50 Downloads
Stroke can cause unilateral paresis of the diaphragm. It is, however, unknown if diaphragm paresis can lead to post-stroke pneumonias. We aimed to evaluate whether the location of post-stroke paresis influenced the location of pneumonia.
This is a retrospective study of all patients admitted to stroke unit in 2006–2009 with a diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage who had hemiparesis or hemiplegia, and who were diagnosed with unilateral pneumonia based on chest radiogram.
Of 1394 patients with a diagnosis of stroke, 64 (5%) patients met the study criteria. Of 35 patients with motor deficit on the left side, 18 (51%) developed pneumonia on the left and 17 (49%) on the right side (p=0.90). Of 29 patients with motor deficit on the right side, 17 (59%) developed pneumonia on the right and 12 (41 %) on the left side (p=0.51). Thus, of all 64 patients, 35 (55%) had pneumonia on the same side as the paresis and 29 (45%) on the contralateral side (p=0.60).
There was no significant occurrence of pneumonia on the side of paresis. Therefore, the side of paresis is not likely to be a helpful clinical marker of diaphragm paresis.
KeywordsComplications of stroke Infection Intensive care Pneumonia Stroke
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Similowski T., Catala M., Rancurel G., Derenne J.P., Impairment of central motor conduction to the diaphragm in stroke, Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med., 1996, 154, 436-441Google Scholar
- Urban P.P., Morgenstern M., Brause K., Wicht S., Vukurevic G., Kessler S., et al., Distribution and course of cortico-respiratory projections for voluntary activation in man. A transcranial magnetic stimulation study in healthy subjects and patients with cerebral ischemia, J. Neurol., 2002, 249, 735–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cuesy P.G., Sotomayor P.L., Pina J.O., Reduction in the incidence of poststroke nosocomial pneumonia by using the “turn-mob” program, J. Stroke Cerebrovasc. Dis., 19, 23–28Google Scholar