European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on management of transient ischaemic attack

Pragmatic solutions to reduce the global burden of stroke: a World Stroke Organization-Lancet Neurology Commission

Stroke is the second leading cause of death worldwide. The burden of disability after a stroke is also large, and is increasing at a faster pace in low-income and middle-income countries than in high-income countries. Alarmingly, the incidence of stroke is increasing in young and middle-aged people (ie, age <55 years) globally. Should these trends continue, Sustainable Development Goal 3.4 (reducing the burden of stroke as part of the general target to reduce the burden of non-communicable diseases by a third by 2030) will not be met.

In this Commission, we forecast the burden of stroke from 2020 to 2050. We project that stroke mortality will increase by 50%—from 6·6 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 6·0 million–7·1 million) in 2020, to 9·7 million (8·0 million–11·6 million) in 2050—with disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) growing over the same period from 144·8 million (133·9 million–156·9 million) in 2020, to 189·3 million (161·8 million–224·9 million) in 2050. These projections prompted us to do a situational analysis across the four pillars of the stroke quadrangle: surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation. We have also identified the barriers to, and facilitators for, the achievement of these four pillars. Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) The sum of the years of life lost as a result of premature mortality from a disease and the years lived with a disability associated with prevalent cases of the disease in a population. One DALY represents the loss of the equivalent of one year of full health

On the basis of our assessment, we have identified and prioritised several recommendations. For each of the four pillars (surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), we propose pragmatic solutions for the implementation of evidence-based interventions to reduce the global burden of stroke. The estimated direct (ie, treatment and rehabilitation) and indirect (considering productivity loss) costs of stroke globally are in excess of US$891 billion annually. The pragmatic solutions we put forwards for urgent implementation should help to mitigate these losses, reduce the global burden of stroke, and contribute to achievement of Sustainable Development Goal 3.4, the WHO Intersectoral Global Action Plan on epilepsy and other neurological disorders (2022–2031), and the WHO Global Action Plan for prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.

Reduction of the global burden of stroke, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries, by implementing primary and secondary stroke prevention strategies and evidence-based acute care and rehabilitation services is urgently required. Measures to facilitate this goal include: the establishment of a framework to monitor and assess the burden of stroke (and its risk factors) and stroke services at a national level; the implementation of integrated population-level and individual-level prevention strategies for people at any increased risk of cerebrovascular disease, with emphasis on early detection and control of hypertension; planning and delivery of acute stroke care services, including the establishment of stroke units with access to reperfusion therapies for ischaemic stroke and workforce training and capacity building (and monitoring of quality indicators for these services nationally, regionally, and globally); the promotion of interdisciplinary stroke care services, training for caregivers, and capacity building for community health workers and other health-care providers working in stroke rehabilitation; and the creation of a stroke advocacy and implementation ecosystem that includes all relevant communities, organisations, and stakeholders.

The Lancet Group takes a neutral position with respect to territorial claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Long-Term Incidence of Ischemic Stroke After Transient Ischemic Attack: A Nationwide Study From 2014 to 2020

BACKGROUND

The short-term incidence of ischemic stroke after a transient ischemic attack (TIA) is high. However, data on the long-term incidence are not well known but are needed to guide preventive strategies.

METHODS

Patients with first-time TIA (index date) in the Danish Stroke Registry (January 2014-December 2020) were included and matched 1:4 with individuals from the background population and 1:1 with patients with a first-time ischemic stroke on the basis of age, sex, and calendar year. The incidences of ischemic stroke and mortality from index date were estimated by Aalen-Johansen and Kaplan-Meier estimators, respectively, and compared between groups using multivariable Cox regression.

RESULTS

We included 21 500 patients with TIA, 86 000 patients from the background population, and 21 500 patients with ischemic stroke (median age, 70.8 years [25th-75th percentile, 60.8-78.7]; 53.1% males). Patients with TIA had more comorbidities than the background population, yet less than the control stroke population. The 5-year incidence of ischemic stroke after TIA (6.1% [95% CI, 5.7-6.5]) was higher than the background population (1.5% [95% CI, 1.4-1.6], P<0.01; hazard ratio, 5.14 [95% CI, 4.65-5.69]) but lower than the control stroke population (8.9% [95% CI, 8.4-9.4], P<0.01; hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.53-0.64]). The 5-year mortality for patients with TIA (18.6% [95% CI, 17.9-19.3]) was higher than the background population (14.8% [95% CI, 14.5-15.1], P<0.01; hazard ratio, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.20-1.32]) but lower than the control stroke population (30.1% [95% CI, 29.3-30.9], P<0.01; hazard ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.39-0.44]).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with first-time TIA had an ischemic stroke incidence of 6.1% during the 5-year follow-up period. After adjustment for relevant comorbidities, this incidence was approximately 5-fold higher than what was found for controls in the background population and 40% lower than for patients with recurrent ischemic stroke.

Determination of the Potential Clinical Benefits of Small Molecule Factor XIa Inhibitors in Arterial Thrombosis

Anticoagulants are the mainstay for the prevention and treatment of thrombosis. However, bleeding complications remain a primary concern. Recent advances in understanding the contribution of activated factor XI (FXIa) in arterial thrombosis with a limited impact on hemostasis have led to the development of several FXIa-targeting modalities. Injectable agents including monoclonal antibodies and antisense oligonucleotides against FXIa have been primarily studied in venous thrombosis. The orally active small molecules that specifically inhibit the active site of FXIa are currently being investigated for their antithrombotic activity in both arteries and veins. This review focuses on a discussion of the potential clinical benefits of small molecule FXIa inhibitors, mainly asundexian and milvexian, in arterial thrombosis based on their pharmacological profiles and the compelling results of phase 2 clinical studies. The preclinical and epidemiological basis for the impact of FXIa in hemostasis and arterial thrombosis is also addressed. In recent clinical study results, asundexian appears to reduce ischemic events in patients with myocardial infarction and minor-to-moderate stroke, whereas milvexian possibly provides benefits in patients with minor stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA). In addition, asundexian and milvexian had a minor impact on hemostasis even in combination with dual-antiplatelet therapy. Other orally active FXIa inhibitors also produce antithrombotic activity in vivo with low bleeding risk. Therefore, FXIa inhibitors might represent a new class of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for the treatment of thrombosis, although the explicit clinical positions of asundexian and milvexian in patients with ischemic stroke, high-risk TIA, and coronary artery disease require confirmation from the outcomes of ongoing phase 3 trials.

Lasting impairments following transient ischemic attack and minor stroke: a systematic review protocol

Introduction

The focus on medical management and secondary prevention following Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) and minor stroke is well-established. Evidence is emerging that people with TIA and minor stroke can experience lasting impairments as fatigue, depression, anxiety, cognitive impairment, and communication difficulties. These impairments are often underrecognized and inconsistently treated. Research in this area is developing rapidly and an updated systematic review is required to evaluate new evidence as it emerges. This living systematic review aims to describe the prevalence of lasting impairments and how they affect the lives of people with TIA and minor stroke. Furthermore, we will explore whether there are differences in impairments experienced by people with TIA compared to minor stroke.

Methods

Systematic searches of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Libraries will be undertaken. The protocol will follow the Cochrane living systematic review guideline with an update annually. A team of interdisciplinary reviewers will independently screen search results, identify relevant studies based on the defined criteria, conduct quality assessments, and extract data. This systematic review will include quantitative studies on people with TIA and/or minor stroke that report on outcomes in relation to fatigue, cognitive and communication impairments, depression, anxiety, quality of life, return to work/education, or social participation. Where possible, findings will be grouped for TIA and minor stroke and collated according to the time that follow-up occurred (short-term < 3 months, medium-term 3-12 months, and long-term > 12 months). Sub-group analysis on TIA and minor stroke will be performed based on results from the included studies. Data from individual studies will be pooled to perform meta-analysis where possible. Reporting will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P) guideline.

Perspectives

This living systematic review will collate the latest knowledge on lasting impairments and how these affect the lives of people with TIA and minor stroke. It will seek to guide and support future research on impairments emphasizing distinctions between TIA and minor stroke. Finally, this evidence will allow healthcare professionals to improve follow-up care for people with TIA and minor stroke by supporting them to identify and address lasting impairments.

Clinical Diagnosis and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Transient and Minor Neurological Symptoms: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain in patients with transient or minor neurological symptoms is uncertain. We sought to determine the proportion of participants with transient or minor neurological symptoms who had MRI evidence of acute ischemia at different clinical probabilities of transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke.

METHODS

Cohort of participants with transient or minor neurological symptoms from emergency and outpatient settings. Clinicians at different levels of training gave each participant a diagnostic probability (probable when TIA/stroke was the most likely differential diagnosis; possible when TIA/stroke was not the most likely differential diagnosis; or uncertain when diagnostic probability could not be given) before 1.5 or 3T brain MRI ≤5 days from onset. Post hoc, each clinical syndrome was defined blind to MRI findings as National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke criteria TIA/stroke; International Headache Society criteria migraine aura; non-TIA focal symptoms; or nonfocal symptoms. MRI evidence of acute ischemia was defined by 2 reads of MRI. Stroke was ascertained for at least 90 days and up to 18 months after recruitment.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy-two participated (47% female, mean age 60, SD 14), 58% with MRI ≤2 days of onset. Most (92%) reported focal symptoms. MR evidence of acute ischemia was found, for stroke/TIA clinical probabilities of probable 23 out of 75 (31% [95% CI, 21%-42%]); possible 26 out of 151 (17% [12%-24%]); and uncertain 9 out of 43, (20% [10%-36%]). MRI evidence of acute ischemia was found in National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke criteria TIA/stroke 40 out of 95 (42% [32%-53%]); migraine aura 4 out of 38 (11% [3%-25%]); non-TIA focal symptoms 16 out of 99 (16% [10%-25%]); and no focal features 1 out of 29 (3% [0%-18%]). After MRI, a further 14 (5% [95% CI, 3-8]) would be treated with an antiplatelet drug compared with treatment plan before MRI. By 18 months, a new ischemic stroke occurred in 9 out of 61 (18%) patients with MRI evidence of acute ischemia and 2 out of 211 (1%) without (age-adjusted hazard ratio, 13 [95% CI, 3-62]; P<0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI evidence of acute brain ischemia was found in about 1 in 6 transient or minor neurological symptoms patients with a nonstroke/TIA initial diagnosis or uncertain diagnosis. Methods to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MRI are needed in this population.

ABCD2, ABCD2-I, and OTTAWA scores for stroke risk assessment: a direct retrospective comparison

Transient ischemic attack (TIA) is a neurologic emergency characterized by cerebral ischemia eliciting a temporary focal neurological deficit. Many clinical prediction scores have been proposed to assess the risk of stroke after TIA; however, studies on their clinical validity and comparisons among them are scarce. The objective is to compare the accuracy of ABCD², ABCD²-I, and OTTAWA scores in the prediction of a stroke at 7, 90 days, and 1 year in patients presenting with TIA. Single-centre, retrospective study including patients with TIA admitted to the Emergency Department of our third-level, University Hospital, between 2018 and 2019. Five hundred three patients were included. Thirty-nine (7.7%) had a stroke within 1 year from the TIA: 9 (1.7%) and 24 (4.7%) within 7 and 90 days, respectively. ABCD², ABCD²-I, and OTTAWA scores were significantly higher in patients who developed a stroke. AUROCs ranged from 0.66 to 0.75, without statistically significant differences at each time-point. Considering the best cut-off of each score, only ABCD² > 3 showed a sensitivity of 100% only in the prediction of stroke within 7 days. Among clinical items of each score, duration of symptoms, previous TIA, hemiparesis, speech disturbance, gait disturbance, previous cerebral ischemic lesions, and known carotid artery disease were independent predictors of stroke. Clinical scores have moderate prognostic accuracy for stroke after TIA. Considering the independent predictors for stroke, our study indicates the need to continue research and prompts the development of new tools on predictive scores for TIA.

Risk of New-Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation After Transient Ischemic Attack

Background

Transient ischemic attack (TIA) provides a unique opportunity to optimize secondary preventive treatments to avoid subsequent ischemic stroke (SIS). Although atrial fibrillation (AF) is the leading cause of cardioembolism in IS and anticoagulation prevents stroke recurrence (SR), limited data exists about the risk of new-diagnosed AF (NDAF) after TIA and the consequences of the diagnostic delay. The aim of our study was to determine this risk in a cohort of TIA patients with long-term follow-up.

Methods

We carried out a prospective cohort study of 723 consecutive TIA patients from January 2006 to June 2010. Median follow-up was 6.5 (5.0–9.6) years. In a subgroup of 204 (28.2%) consecutive patients, a panel of biomarkers was assessed during the first 24 h of the onset of symptoms. Multivariate analyses were performed to find out the associated factors of NDAF. Kaplan-Meier analysis was also performed to analyzed risk of SIS.

Results

NDAF was indentified in 116 (16.0%) patients: 42 (36.2%) during admission, 18 (15.5%) within first year, 29 (25%) between one and five years and 27 (23.3%) beyond 5 years. NDAF was associated with sex (female) [hazard ratio (HR) 1.61 (95% CI, 1.07- 2.41)], age [[HR 1.05 (95% CI, 1.03–1.07)], previous ischemic heart disease (IHD) [HR 1.84, (95% CI 1.15–2.97)] and cortical DWI pattern [HR 2.81 (95% CI, 1.87–4.21)]. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, NT-proBNP ≥ 218.2 pg/ml (log-rank test P < 0.001) was associated with significant risk of NDAF during the first 5 years of follow-up. Patients with NDAF after admission and before 5 years of follow-up had the highest risk of SIS (P = 0.002).

Conclusion

The risk of NDAF after TIA is clinically relevant. We identified clinical and neuroimaging factors of NDAF. In addition, NT-proBNP was related to NDAF. Our results can be used to evaluate the benefit of long-term cardiac monitoring in selected patients.

Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis. For DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). For sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.

Schankin C, Straube A. Visual Phenomena Associated With Migraine and Their Differential Diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Visual phenomena are of many different kinds; their differential diagnosis is usually possible with directed history-taking. In this review, we describe common visual phenomena that must be distinguished from a migraine aura.

METHODS

This review is based on publications retrieved by a selective search in PubMed and the Web of Knowledge/Science, with special attention to the current classification of the International Headache Society and the recommendations of the German Migraine and Headache Society. The following search terms were used: "visual phenomena/phenomenon," "migraine aura," and "persistent/complication/ long-lasting/ongoing."

RESULTS

The most helpful questions for differential diagnosis are whether the symptoms are present in one eye only or in both, whether their onset was sudden or over minutes or days, and whether the phenomenon has occurred only once or repeatedly, or is persistently present. A visual aura associated with migraine must be distinguished, in rare cases, from an isolated epileptic aura, from cerebral/retinal ischemia, or from visual snow. Further differential diagnoses include a persisting perceptual disturbance after hallucinogen use (HPPD, "hallucinogen persisting perception disorder") and the Charles Bonnet syndrome (CBS); the latter arises as a consequence of severely impaired vision. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) is rare and generally reveals itself over its further course through the appearance of additional clinical manifestations. Primary ophthalmological causes can usually be readily identified and classified by ophthalmological examination.

CONCLUSION

Patients with visual phenomena typically consult physicians from various medical specialties. A correct differential diagnosis can be made based on the history if the physician views the symptoms in their overall context to determine the particular disease entity that is responsible.