Objective To investigate the knowledge about risk factors for stroke in stroke patients. Methods 1043 stroke patients in 10 hospitals were investigated with self-designed questionnaire. Results The rate of awareness of risk factors for stroke was: hypertension 61.55%, hyperlipidemia 40.27%, drinking 32.21%, smoking 30.11%, diabetes mellitus 28.67%, heart disease 23.11%. 6.42% knew all the 6 risk factors, and 20.13% did not know any risk factor. The rate of awareness of diabetes mellitus was different among various aged groups (P<0.01), and the rate of awareness of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus increased with the years of education. Conclusion The stroke patients know less about the common risk factors for stroke, who need more health education.

Objective To investigate the knowledge of stroke risk factors, early symptoms, and rehabilitation in stroke patients. Methods 1043 cases with stroke were stratified randomly sampled from 10 hospitals at different levels in Gansu, and were surveyed with self-designed questionnaire. Results For risk factors for stroke, hypertension was the most aware (61.55%), 6.42% knew all the factors. For the prevention and treatment, reasonable diet was the most aware (56.18%), followed with giving up smoking and drinking (52.92%). For the early symptoms, dysaesthesia of one side body was the most aware (53.88%), and then the headache and dizzy (50.14%). It was less than 30% to know the blurring, nausea and vomiting, and stiff tongue, etc. as the early symptoms. 60% of the patients did not know any about the rehabilitation, 22% did not know if rehabilitation be needed. 80% of the patients with stroke chose medication regardless of family income, and rehabilitation was chosen less than 30%. Conclusion It is important to popularize the knowledge of risk factors, early symptoms, and rehabilitation of stroke.

ObjectiveTo review the efficacy and safety in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke with cilostazol or aspirin.Methodswe searched Cochrane Library(the 4th issue, 2009 ), PubMed(1980.1～2009.11), EMBASE(1980.1～2009.11), CBM(1978.1～2009.11), CNKI(1979.1～2009.11) and some other databases, then collected all of the studies describing the outcomes in curing the ischemic stroke after taking cilostazol or aspirin. According to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted datas, made cross-checking and methodological quality assessment of the homogeneity studies by using the Cochrane systematic review methods, then made Meta analysis using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsThis systematic review study included two randomized controlled trials and a cross-over trial, which contained a total of 838 participants. The evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials was high, however, the evidence quality of another randomized controlled trial and the cross-over trial was poor. Meta analysis results suggested that the effectiveness of cilostazol and aspirin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke performed no significantly statistical difference: primary endpoint(30 d［RR=3.00, 95%CI(0.31,28.70)］; 90 d［RR=1.67, 95%CI(0.40,6.92)］; 180 d［RR=1.25, 95%CI(0.50, 3.13)］; 360 d［RR=0.65, 95%CI(0.33, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.80,95%CI(0.54, 1.18)］); combined endpoint(30 d［RR=4.00, 95%CI(0.45,35.61)］; 90 d ［RR=1.75,95%CI(0.52,5.93)］; 180 d［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.48, 2.07)］; 360 d ［RR=0.77, 95%CI(0.45, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.66,95%CI(0.40,1.09)］); the recurrence of ischemic stroke: cilostazol group: RR=0.64, 95%CI(0.31,1.30)，aspirin group: RR=0.21, 95%CI(0.04,1.06); PDMP［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.39, 2.58)］. But in terms of the probability of intracranial hemorrhage (［RR=7.14, 95%CI(0.7,58.33)］) and other safety standards, taking cilostazol performed lower than taking aspirin.ConclusionThe side effects of cilostazol and aspirin in the treatment for ischemic stroke were similar to each other, but in terms of the probability of dizziness, headache, tachycardia and palpitation, taking cilostazol performed higher than taking aspirin, however, taking cilostazol performed lower in the probability of intracranial hemorrhage and other organ hemorrhage than taking aspirin. Since this study included a small amount of studies, in which the evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials and the cross-over study was poor, therefore, it would be necessary to make a further validation with lots of high-quality clinical trials.