Dataset Information

How do neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Identifying and treating patients with transient ischemic attack is an effective means of preventing stroke. However, making this diagnosis can be challenging, and over a third of patients referred to stroke prevention clinic are ultimately found to have alternate diagnoses.

Aims

We performed a systematic review to determine how neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack.

Summary of review

A systematic literature search was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. Publications eligible for inclusion were those that included information on the demographic or clinical features neurologists use to diagnose transient ischemic attacks or transient ischemic attack-mimics. Of 1666 citations, 210 abstracts were selected for full-text screening and 80 publications were ultimately deemed eligible for inclusion. Neurologists were more likely to diagnose transient ischemic attack based on clinical features including negative symptoms or speech deficits. Patients with positive symptoms, altered level of consciousness, or the presence of nonfocal symptoms such as confusion or amnesia were more likely to be diagnosed with transient ischemic attack-mimic. Neurologists commonly include mode of onset (i.e. sudden versus gradual), recurrence of attacks, and localizability of symptoms to a distinct vascular territory in the diagnostic decision-making process. Transient ischemic attack diagnosis was more commonly associated with advanced age, preexisting hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and other vascular risk factors.

Conclusions

Neurologists rely on certain clinical and demographic features to distinguish transient ischemic attacks from mimics, which are not currently reflected in widely used risk scores. Clarifying how neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack may help frontline clinicians to better select patients for referral to stroke prevention clinics.

SUBMITTER: Fitzpatrick T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6604401 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack: A systematic review.

Fitzpatrick Tess T Gocan Sophia S Wang Chu Q CQ Hamel Candyce C Bourgoin Aline A Dowlatshahi Dar D Stotts Grant G Shamy Michel M

International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society 20181203 2

<h4>Background</h4>Identifying and treating patients with transient ischemic attack is an effective means of preventing stroke. However, making this diagnosis can be challenging, and over a third of patients referred to stroke prevention clinic are ultimately found to have alternate diagnoses.<h4>Aims</h4>We performed a systematic review to determine how neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack.<h4>Summary of review</h4>A systematic literature search was performed according to the Preferr ...[more]

PMID: 30507363

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events despite current preventive therapies. The identification of insulin resistance as a risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction raised the possibility that pioglitazone, which improves insulin sensitivity, might benefit patients with cerebrovascular disease. METHODS:In this multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 3876 patients who had had a recent ischemic stroke or TIA to receive either pioglitazone (target dose, 45 mg daily) or placebo. Eligible patients did not have diabetes but were found to have insulin resistance on the basis of a score of more than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index. The primary outcome was fatal or nonfatal stroke or myocardial infarction. RESULTS:By 4.8 years, a primary outcome had occurred in 175 of 1939 patients (9.0%) in the pioglitazone group and in 228 of 1937 (11.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the pioglitazone group, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.93; P=0.007). Diabetes developed in 73 patients (3.8%) and 149 patients (7.7%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.69; P<0.001). There was no significant between-group difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.17; P=0.52). Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg than was placebo (52.2% vs. 33.7%, P<0.001), edema (35.6% vs. 24.9%, P<0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% vs. 3.2%, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:In this trial involving patients without diabetes who had insulin resistance along with a recent history of ischemic stroke or TIA, the risk of stroke or myocardial infarction was lower among patients who received pioglitazone than among those who received placebo. Pioglitazone was also associated with a lower risk of diabetes but with higher risks of weight gain, edema, and fracture. (Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00091949.).

Project description:ImportanceManagement of transient ischemic attack (TIA) has gained significant attention during the past 25 years after several landmark studies indicated the high incidence of a subsequent stroke.ObjectiveTo calculate the pooled event rate of subsequent ischemic stroke within 2, 7, 30, and 90 days of a TIA and compare this incidence among the population with TIA recruited before 1999 (group A), from 1999 to 2007 (group B), and after 2007 (group C).Data sourcesAll published studies of TIA outcomes were obtained by searching PubMed from 1996, to the last update on January 31, 2020, irrespective of the study design, document type, or language.Study selectionOf 11 516 identified citations, 175 articles were relevant to this review. Both the classic time-based definition of TIA and the new tissue-based definition were accepted. Studies with a combined record of patients with TIA and ischemic stroke, without clinical evaluation for the index TIA, with diagnosis of index TIA event after ischemic stroke occurrence, with low suspicion for TIA, or duplicate reports of the same database were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe study was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA, MOOSE, and EQUATOR guidelines. Critical appraisal and methodological quality assessment used the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Publication bias was visualized by funnel plots and measured by the Begg-Mazumdar rank correlation Kendall τ2 statistic and Egger bias test. Data were pooled using double arcsine transformations, DerSimonian-Laird estimator, and random-effects models.Main outcomes and measuresThe proportion of the early ischemic stroke after TIA within 4 evaluation intervals (2, 7, 30, and 90 days) was considered as effect size.ResultsSystematic review yielded 68 unique studies with 223 866 unique patients from 1971 to 2019. The meta-analysis included 206 455 patients (58% women) during a span of 4 decades. The overall subsequent ischemic stroke incidence rates were estimated as 2.4% (95% CI, 1.8%-3.2%) within 2 days, 3.8% (95% CI, 2.5%-5.4%) within 7 days, 4.1% (95% CI, 2.4%-6.3%) within 30 days, and 4.7% (95% CI, 3.3%-6.4%) within 90 days. There was a recurrence risk of 3.4% among group A in comparison with 2.1% in group B or 2.1% in group C within 2 days; 5.5% in group A vs 2.9% in group B or 3.2% in group C within 7 days; 6.3% in group A vs 2.9% in group B or 3.4% in group C within 30 days, and 7.4% in group A vs 3.9% in group B or 3.9% in group C within 90 days.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that TIA continues to be associated with a high risk of early stroke; however, the rate of post-TIA stroke might have decreased slightly during the past 2 decades.

Project description:BackgroundAntiplatelet drugs may prevent recurrent ischemic events after ischemic stroke but their relative effectiveness and harms still need to be clarified. Within this network meta-analysis we aimed to summarize the current evidence for using antiplatelet drugs for secondary stroke prevention.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL up to September 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing antiplatelet drugs for secondary stroke prevention were included. We did pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses using random-effects models. Primary outcomes were all strokes (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and all-cause mortality.ResultsThe review included 57 RCTs, 50 (n = 165,533 participants) provided data for the meta-analyses. Compared to placebo/no treatment, moderate to high-confidence evidence indicated that cilostazol, clopidogrel, dipyridamole + aspirin, ticagrelor, ticlopidine, and aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day significantly reduced the risk of all strokes (odds ratios, ORs and absolute risk difference, ARD): cilostazol 0.51 (95 % confidence interval, CI, 0.37 to 0.71; 3.6 % fewer), clopidogrel 0.63 (95 % CI, 0.49 to 0.79; 2.7 % fewer), dipyridamole + aspirin 0.65 (95 % CI, 0.55 to 0.78; 2.5 % fewer), ticagrelor 0.68 (95 % CI, 0.50 to 0.93; 2.3 % fewer), ticlopidine 0.74 (95 % CI 0.59 to 0.93; 1.9 % fewer), aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day 0.79 (95 % CI, 0.66 to 0.95; 1.5 % fewer). Aspirin > 150 mg/day and the combinations clopidogrel/aspirin, ticagrelor/aspirin, also decrease all strokes but increase the risk of hemorrhagic events. Only aspirin > 150 mg/day significantly reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.86, 95 % CI 0.76 to 0.97; ARD 0.9 %, 95 %CI 1.5-0.2 % fewer, moderate confidence). Compared to aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day, clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of all strokes, cardiovascular events, and intracranial hemorrhage outcomes. Cilostazol also appeared to provide advantages but data are limited to the Asian population.ConclusionsConsidering the benefits and harms ratio, cilostazol, clopidogrel, dipyridamole + aspirin, ticagrelor, ticlopidine, and aspirin ≤ 150 mg/day appear to be the best choices as antiplatelet drugs for secondary prevention of patients with ischemic stroke or TIA.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020159896 .

Project description:BACKGROUND:Statins may prevent recurrent ischemic events after ischemic stroke. Determining which statin to use remains controversial. We aimed to summarize the evidence for the use of statins in secondary prevention for patients with ischemic stroke by comparing benefits and harms of various statins. METHODS:We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing statins in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL up to July 2017. Two authors extracted data and appraised risks of bias. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) to compare statins versus placebo/no statin, and network meta-analyses using frequentist random-effects models to compare statins through indirect evidence. We used GRADE to rate the overall certainty of evidence. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and all strokes. Secondary outcomes were different types of strokes, cardiovascular events, and adverse events. RESULTS:We identified nine trials (10,741 patients). No head-to-head RCTs were found. The median follow-up period was 2.5?years. Statins did not seem to modify all stroke and all-cause mortality outcomes; they were associated with a decreased risk of ischemic stroke (odds ratio, OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93]; absolute risk difference, ARD, -?1.6% [95% CI, -?2.6 to -?0.6%]), ischemic stroke or TIA (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.87]; ARD, -?4.2% [95% CI, -?6.2 to -?2.1%]), and cardiovascular event (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.69 to 0.83]; ARD, -?5.4% [95% CI, -?6.8 to -?3.6%]), and did not seem to modify rhabdomyolysis, myalgia, or rise in creatine kinase. In the comparison of different statins, moderate- to high-quality evidence indicated that differences between pharmaceutical products seemed modest, with high doses (e.g., atorvastatin 80?mg/day and simvastatin 40?mg/day) associated with the greatest benefits. TSA excluded random error as a cause of the findings for ischemic stroke and cardiovascular event outcomes. Evidence for increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke was sensitive to the exclusion of the SPARCL trial. CONCLUSIONS:Evidence strongly suggests that statins are associated with a reduction in the absolute risk of ischemic strokes and cardiovascular events. Differences in effects among statins were modest, signaling potential therapeutic equivalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018079112.

Dataset Information

How do neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack: A systematic review.

Background

Aims

Summary of review

Conclusions

Publications

How do neurologists diagnose transient ischemic attack: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets