Dataset Information

Early stroke risk and ABCD2 score performance in tissue- vs time-defined TIA: a multicenter study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Stroke risk immediately after TIA defined by time-based criteria is high, and prognostic scores (ABCD2 and ABCD3-I) have been developed to assist management. The American Stroke Association has proposed changing the criteria for the distinction between TIA and stroke from time-based to tissue-based. Research using these definitions is lacking. In a multicenter observational cohort study, we have investigated prognosis and performance of the ABCD2 score in TIA, subcategorized as tissue-positive or tissue-negative on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) or CT imaging according to the newly proposed criteria.

Methods

Twelve centers provided data on ABCD2 scores, DWI or CT brain imaging, and follow-up in cohorts of patients with TIA diagnosed by time-based criteria. Stroke rates at 7 and 90 days were studied in relation to tissue-positive or tissue-negative subcategorization, according to the presence or absence of brain infarction. The predictive power of the ABCD2 score was determined using area under receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) analyses.

Results

A total of 4,574 patients were included. Among DWI patients (n = 3,206), recurrent stroke rates at 7 days were 7.1%(95% confidence interval 5.5-9.1) after tissue-positive and 0.4% (0.2-0.7) after tissue-negative events (p diff < 0.0001). Corresponding rates in CT-imaged patients were 12.8% (9.3-17.4) and 3.0% (2.0-4.2), respectively (p diff < 0.0001). The ABCD2 score had predictive value in tissue-positive and tissue-negative events (AUC = 0.68 [95% confidence interval 0.63-0.73] and 0.73 [0.67-0.80], respectively; p sig < 0.0001 for both results, p diff = 0.17). Tissue-positive events with low ABCD2 scores and tissue-negative events with high ABCD2 scores had similar stroke risks, especially after a 90-day follow-up.

Conclusions

Our findings support the concept of a tissue-based definition of TIA and stroke, at least on prognostic grounds.

SUBMITTER: Giles MF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3179650 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo validate the previously derived Canadian TIA Score to stratify subsequent stroke risk in a new cohort of emergency department patients with transient ischaemic attack.DesignProspective cohort study.Setting13 Canadian emergency departments over five years.Participants7607 consecutively enrolled adult patients attending the emergency department with transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was subsequent stroke or carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting within seven days. The secondary outcome was subsequent stroke within seven days (with or without carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting). Telephone follow-up used the validated Questionnaire for Verifying Stroke Free Status at seven and 90 days. All outcomes were adjudicated by panels of three stroke experts, blinded to the index emergency department visit.ResultsOf the 7607 patients, 108 (1.4%) had a subsequent stroke within seven days, 83 (1.1%) had carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting within seven days, and nine had both. The Canadian TIA Score stratified the risk of stroke, carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting, or both within seven days as low (risk ≤0.5%; interval likelihood ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 0.44), medium (risk 2.3%; interval likelihood ratio 0.94, 0.85 to 1.04), and high (risk 5.9% interval likelihood ratio 2.56, 2.02 to 3.25) more accurately (area under the curve 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.73) than did the ABCD2 (0.60, 0.55 to 0.64) or ABCD2i (0.64, 0.59 to 0.68). Results were similar for subsequent stroke regardless of carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting within seven days.ConclusionThe Canadian TIA Score stratifies patients' seven day risk for stroke, with or without carotid endarterectomy/carotid artery stenting, and is now ready for clinical use. Incorporating this validated risk estimate into management plans should improve early decision making at the index emergency visit regarding benefits of hospital admission, timing of investigations, and prioritisation of specialist referral.

Project description:ObjectiveWe compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke.MethodsThe JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more than 12,000 stroke patients admitted to 12 stroke centers. The primary outcome was prediction of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≥3) at discharge within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of observed outcomes. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and death or institutionalization at discharge.ResultsClinicians made 1,661 predictions with overall accuracy of 16.9% for death or disability at discharge, 46.9% for 30-day mortality, and 33.1% for death or institutionalization at discharge. In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95% CI of observed outcomes. Nearly half (n = 53 of 111; 48%) of participants were unable to accurately predict the probability of the primary outcome in any of the 5 rated cases. Less than 1% (n = 1) provided accurate predictions in 4 of the 5 cases and none accurately predicted all 5 case outcomes. In multivariable analyses, the presence of patient characteristics associated with poor outcomes (mRS ≥3 or death) in previous studies (older age, high NIH Stroke Scale score, and nonlacunar subtype) were associated with more accurate clinician predictions of death at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% CI 1.57-3.67) and with a trend for more accurate predictions of death or disability at discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.99-3.46).ConclusionsClinicians with expertise in stroke performed poorly compared to a validated tool in predicting the outcomes of patients with an acute ischemic stroke. Use of the risk stroke outcome tool may be superior for decision-making following an acute ischemic stroke.

Project description:Background and objectiveGenotype data of the Clopidogrel with Aspirin in Acute Minor Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (CHANCE) trial showed that efficacy of clopidogrel aspirin depended on CYP2C19 genotype and risk profile. A stratification of patients who carried CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) alleles according to the risk of recurrent stroke may be important for selecting optimal antiplatelet therapy. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor aspirin with clopidogrel aspirin in CYP2C19 LOF carriers with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) stratified by risk profile.MethodsData were obtained from Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel with Aspirin in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events II (CHANCE-2) trial. Low-risk and high-risk profiles were defined by Essen Stroke Risk Score (ESRS) (<3 [low risk] and ≥3 [high risk], respectively).ResultsA total of 6,412 CYP2C19 LOF carriers were enrolled; ticagrelor aspirin was associated with a reduced risk of primary outcome (new stroke within 90-day follow-up) in patients at low risk (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.82), but not in those at high risk (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29), compared with clopidogrel aspirin (p = 0.02 for interaction). Secondary outcomes generally went in the same direction as the primary outcome. The primary safety outcome of severe or moderate bleeding did not differ based on risk profile (p = 0.24 for interaction), although the incidence of total bleeding was greater with ticagrelor aspirin than with clopidogrel aspirin among patients at low risk (p < 0.01 for interaction). Analysis in the per-protocol population yielded similar results.DiscussionThis post hoc analysis of CHANCE-2 trial showed that CYP2C19 LOF carriers with minor stroke or TIA at low risk of recurrent stroke received a greater benefit from ticagrelor aspirin than from clopidogrel aspirin.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that CYP2C19 LOF carriers with minor stroke or TIA at low risk, but not at high risk, of recurrent stroke (by the ESRS) received a greater benefit from ticagrelor aspirin than from clopidogrel aspirin.Trial registration informationURL: www.Clinicaltrialsgov. Unique identifier: NCT04078737.

Project description:BackgroundThe ABCD2 score (Age, Blood pressure, Clinical features, Duration of symptoms and Diabetes) is used to identify patients having a transient ischemic attack who are at high risk for imminent stroke. However, despite its widespread implementation, the ABCD2 score has not yet been prospectively validated. We assessed the accuracy of the ABCD2 score for predicting stroke at 7 (primary outcome) and 90 days.MethodsThis prospective cohort study enrolled adults from eight Canadian emergency departments who had received a diagnosis of transient ischemic attack. Physicians completed data forms with the ABCD2 score before disposition. The outcome criterion, stroke, was established by a treating neurologist or by an Adjudication Committee. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting stroke 7 and 90 days after visiting the emergency department using the original "high-risk" cutpoint of an ABCD2 score of more than 5, and the American Heart Association recommendation of a score of more than 2.ResultsWe enrolled 2056 patients (mean age 68.0 yr, 1046 (50.9%) women) who had a rate of stroke of 1.8% at 7 days and 3.2% at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 5 had a sensitivity of 31.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.1-47.5) for stroke at 7 days and 29.2% (95% CI 19.6-41.2) for stroke at 90 days. An ABCD2 score of more than 2 resulted in sensitivity of 94.7% (95% CI 82.7-98.5) for stroke at 7 days with a specificity of 12.5% (95% CI 11.2-14.1). The accuracy of the ABCD2 score as calculated by either the enrolling physician (area under the curve 0.56; 95% CI 0.47-0.65) or the coordinating centre (area under the curve 0.65; 95% CI 0.57-0.73) was poor.InterpretationThis multicentre prospective study involving patients in emergency departments with transient ischemic attack found the ABCD2 score to be inaccurate, at any cut-point, as a predictor of imminent stroke. Furthermore, the ABCD2 score of more than 2 that is recommended by the American Heart Association is nonspecific.