Search

Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) significantly reduces the risk of subsequent stroke as compared to aspirin monotherapy after high-risk transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor ischemic stroke. We sought to evaluate the uptake of DAPT after high-risk TIA at a single center. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of consecutive TIA patients admitted via the Emergency Department (ED) of Bern University Hospital (1/1/2018-12/31/2019). We use descriptive statistics to detail cohort characteristics and compared patients treated with DAPT to those not treated. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05 and all tests of comparison were two-sided. A total of 383 TIA patients were seen during the study period, 247 were eligible for DAPT. Among those eligible for DAPT, mean age was 72 years and 51% were female. A total of 49 (19.8%) eligible TIA patients were treated with DAPT; use of DAPT significantly increased from 2018 to 2019. Patients admitted to the stroke unit or intensive care unit (n = 33) had a significantly higher proportion of DAPT treatment as compared to those admitted to the general neurology ward or discharged to home from the ED. DAPT use was also significantly higher in patients with large artery atherosclerotic disease (n = 23) as compared to other etiological subtypes and significantly higher among patients who arrived to the ED within 24 h of symptom onset (n = 178). In conclusion, we found that only 2 out of every 10 high-risk TIA patients received DAPT in the years following its introduction in the clinical practice. Our results suggest that strategies to improve the uptake of new, evidence-based secondary stroke prevention treatment after high-risk TIA are needed., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background and Objectives: Cancer is associated with an increased risk of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and venous thromboembolism. The role of a cardiac right-to-left shunt (RLS) as a surrogate parameter for paradoxical embolism in cancer-related strokes is uncertain. We sought to investigate the relationship between the presence of an RLS and cancer in AIS patients., Methods: We included consecutive AIS patients hospitalized at our tertiary stroke center between January 2015 and December 2020 with available RLS status as detected on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). Active cancers were retrospectively identified and the association with RLS was assessed with multivariable logistic regression and inverse probability of treatment weighting to minimize the ascertainment bias of having a TEE obtained., Results: Of the 2236 AIS patients included, 103 (4.6%) had active cancer, of whom 24 (23%) were diagnosed with RLS. An RLS was present in 774 out of the 2133 AIS patients without active cancer (36%). After adjustment and weighting, the absence of RLS was associated with active cancer (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.29; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.14-4.58). When analysis was restricted to patients younger than 60 years of age or those with a high-risk RLS (Risk of Paradoxical Embolism Score ⩾ 6), there was no association between RLS and cancer (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 0.79-11.88 and aOR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.10-3.10, respectively)., Conclusion: RLS was diagnosed less frequently in AIS patients with cancer than in cancer-free patients, suggesting that arterial sources may play a larger role in cancer-related strokes than paradoxical venous embolization. Future studies are needed to validate these findings and evaluate potential therapeutic implications, such as the general indication, or lack thereof, for patent foramen ovale (PFO) closure in this patient population., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Mo.B. reports research support from the Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and the University of Bern, Switzerland.None of the other authors report any conflicts of interest in relation with this study.

Background: Few data exist on acute stroke treatment in patients with pre-existing disability (PD) since they are usually excluded from clinical trials. A recent trial of mobile stroke units (MSUs) demonstrated faster treatment and improved outcomes, and included PD patients., Aim: To determine outcomes with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA), and benefit of MSU versus management by emergency medical services (EMS), for PD patients., Methods: Primary outcomes were utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (uw-mRS). Linear and logistic regression models compared outcomes in patients with versus without PD, and PD patients treated by MSU versus standard management by EMS. Time metrics, safety, quality of life, and health-care utilization were compared., Results: Of the 1047 tPA-eligible ischemic stroke patients, 254 were with PD (baseline mRS 2-5) and 793 were without PD (baseline mRS 0-1). Although PD patients had worse 90-day uw-mRS, higher mortality, more health-care utilization, and worse quality of life than non-disabled patients, 53% returned to at least their baseline mRS, those treated faster had better outcome, and there was no increased bleeding risk. Comparing PD patients treated by MSU versus EMS, 90-day uw-mRS was 0.42 versus 0.36 (p = 0.07) and 57% versus 46% returned to at least their baseline mRS. There was no interaction between disability status and MSU versus EMS group assignment (p = 0.67) for 90-day uw-mRS., Conclusion: PD did not prevent the benefit of faster treatment with tPA in the BEST-MSU study. Our data support inclusion of PD patients in the MSU management paradigm., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: J.C. Grotta has received grants from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), NIH, Genentech, CSL Behring, and Chiesi; is a consultant for Frazer, advison the scientific advisory board for Haemonetics and Acticor, and on the DSMB for Prolong Pharma. J.L. Saver receives contracted hourly payments from Bayer, Biogen, Roche, Genentech, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, and Occlutech for service on clinical trial steering committees and DSMBs. The remaining authors have no disclosures.

Background and Purpose: The impact of arterial ischemic events after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) on outcomes is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the risk of death among ICH survivors with and without an incident arterial ischemic event., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using claims data from Medicare beneficiaries with a non-traumatic ICH from January 2008 to October 2015. Our exposure was an arterial ischemic event, a composite of acute ischemic stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), identified using validated ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes. The outcome was mortality. We used marginal structural models to analyze the risk of death among ICH patients with and without an arterial ischemic event, after adjusting for confounders as time-varying covariates., Results: Among 8,804 Medicare beneficiaries with ICH, 2,371 (26.9%) had an arterial ischemic event. During a median follow-up time of 1.9 years (interquartile range, 0.7-3.9), ICH patients with an arterial ischemic event had a mortality rate of 21.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.4-23.0) per 100 person-years compared to a rate of 15.0 (95% CI, 14.4-15.6) per 100 person-years in those without. In the marginal structural model, an arterial ischemic event was associated with an increased risk of death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-1.9). In secondary analyses, the mortality risk was elevated after an ischemic stroke (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.5-1.8), and MI (HR, 3.0; 95% CI, 2.4-3.8)., Conclusions: We found that elderly patients who survived an ICH had an increased risk of death after a subsequent ischemic stroke or MI., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. AM is supported by the NIH (grant KL2TR002385), the American Heart Association (18CDA34110419) and the Leon Levy Foundation. GJF is supported by the NIH (K76AG059992, R03NS112859), the American Heart Association (18IDDG34280056), the Yale Pepper Scholar Award (P30AG021342) and the Neurocritical Care Society Research Fellowship. KNS is supported by the NIH (U24NS107215, U24NS107136, RO1NR018335, and U01NS106513), Novartis, and Bard, and reports grants from Hyperfine, Biogen, and Astrocyte unrelated to this work. AB is supported by the NIH (K23NS100816). H.K serves as the co-PI for the NIH-funded ARCADIA trial which receives in-kind study drug from the BMS-Pfizer Alliance and in-kind study assays from Roche Diagnostics, serves as a steering committee member of Medtronic’s Stroke AF trial (uncompensated), serves on an endpoint adjudication committee for a trial of empagliflozin for Boehringer-Ingelheim, and has served on an advisory board for Roivant Sciences related to Factor XI inhibition. S.B.M is supported by the NIH (K23NS105948). All other authors report no conflict of interest for this study., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

The grim circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the need to refine and adapt stroke systems of care. Patients' care-seeking behaviors have changed due to perceived risks of in-hospital treatment during the pandemic. In response to these challenges, we optimized a recently implemented, novel outpatient approach for the evaluation and management of minor stroke and transient ischemic attack, entitled RESCUE-TIA. This modified approach incorporated telemedicine visits and remote testing, and proved valuable during the pandemic. In this review article, we provide the evidence-based rationale for our approach, describe its operationalization, and provide data from our initial experience., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Dr. Babak Navi serves as a DSMB member for the PCORI-funded TRAVERSE trial and has received personal fees for medicolegal consulting on stroke., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background and Purpose: We sought to determine the proportion of patients with ischemic stroke evaluated by vascular neurologists in the United States., Methods: Using 2009 to 2015 claims from a 5% nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries, we identified patients ≥65 years of age who were hospitalized for ischemic stroke. We ascertained the proportion of patients evaluated during the hospitalization or within 90 days of discharge by nonvascular and vascular neurologists. We assessed the relationship between county-level socioeconomic status and the likelihood of neurologist evaluation and between neurologist evaluation and diagnostic testing., Results: Among 66 989 patients with ischemic stroke, 37 820 (56.5%) were evaluated by a nonvascular neurologist and 11 700 (17.5%) by a board-certified vascular neurologist. Across increasing quartiles of county socioeconomic advantage, the proportion of patients evaluated by a vascular neurologist was 12.2%, 16.5%, 19.8%, and 23.0%. Relative to evaluation by a nonvascular neurologist, evaluation by a vascular neurologist was associated with a higher likelihood of postdischarge heart rhythm monitoring (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-1.9), echocardiography (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.4), cervical vessel imaging (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.3), and intracranial vessel imaging (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 2.0-2.2)., Conclusions: In a nationally representative cohort of Medicare beneficiaries, we found that about three quarters of patients with ischemic stroke were evaluated by a neurologist, and about one-sixth were evaluated by a vascular neurologist. Patients who were evaluated by a vascular neurologist were significantly more likely to undergo diagnostic testing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background and Purpose: Data are lacking on the long-term risk of hip fracture among patients with ischemic stroke. A better understanding of the contemporary incidence of hip fracture after ischemic stroke could benefit patient care by promoting strategies to prevent this disabling complication in stroke survivors., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study using inpatient and outpatient claims between 2008 and 2015 from a nationally representative 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries. We included patients ≥66 years of age who were hospitalized with acute ischemic stroke, defined through a validated diagnostic code algorithm. We excluded patients who had a prior or concurrent hip fracture diagnosis at the time of ischemic stroke. The primary outcome was hip fracture requiring hospitalization. Survival statistics were used to calculate crude incidence rates, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate cumulative rates., Results: Among the 1 772 550 beneficiaries in our sample, 60 099 were diagnosed with an acute ischemic stroke without prior or concomitant hip fracture. During 4.5 (±2.2) years of follow-up, the incidence of hip fracture was 1.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5-1.6) per 100 person-years in patients with acute ischemic stroke versus 0.6 (95% CI: 0.6-0.6) per 100 person-years in patients without acute ischemic stroke. The cumulative 5-year rate of hip fracture was 7.6% (95% CI: 7.2%-8.0%) among patients with acute ischemic stroke versus 2.8% (95% CI: 2.8%-2.9%) among the remaining Medicare beneficiaries., Conclusion: We found that among elderly Medicare beneficiaries with acute ischemic stroke, nearly 1 in 12 developed a hip fracture over the next 5 years., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2019.)

Intravenous thrombolysis is the standard treatment for acute ischemic stroke (AIS). However, patients with cancer who have stroke are often precluded from therapy because of coagulopathy or recent surgery. Endovascular therapy may be a more suitable recanalization strategy for some patients with cancer and stroke, but no prior detailed reports documenting its use in this population exist. We present a case series from a tertiary care referral center of 2 patients with active systemic cancer who were successfully treated with endovascular therapy for AIS. Both patients had active lung cancer with excellent premorbid functional status and presented with severe AIS from left middle cerebral artery occlusions. Intravenous thrombolysis was deferred because of absolute contraindications. Mechanical embolectomy was performed instead and revascularization was achieved within 5 hours in both patients, resulting in dramatic neurological recoveries-National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale improved from 14 to 0 and from 23 to 3 from admission to discharge, respectively. In conclusion, endovascular therapy may be beneficial for select patients with cancer and AIS who are ineligible for intravenous thrombolysis. However, further studies are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of endovascular therapy in the population with cancer.

Amyloid beta-related angiitis (ABRA) of the central nervous system (CNS) is a very rare inflammatory disorder that causes destruction of CNS arteries and subsequent neuronal injury. Most patients with ABRA are old and present with cognitive dysfunction and stroke; however, some patients may present atypically. In this article, we report a 44-year-old man who presented with a first-time seizure but was otherwise neurologically intact and denied any headache. Brain MRI showed right hemispheric and bilateral medial frontal lobe hyperintensities and microhemorrhages that were most suspicious for a mass lesion. An extensive diagnostic evaluation including CSF analysis and catheter angiography was unremarkable. A brain biopsy with specific stains for amyloid surprisingly demonstrated ABRA and led to immunosuppressive treatment. The patient has remained neurologically intact and seizure-free 1 year after presentation. This case demonstrates that ABRA can occur in young patients without headache or neurologic deficits, and should be considered in patients with new-onset seizures and mass lesions. It also reinforces the need to consider a brain biopsy in patients with idiopathic brain lesions and negative non-invasive testing, as it is virtually impossible to confirm the diagnosis of ABRA otherwise.

Background and Purpose: Dizziness is a frequent reason for neuroimaging and neurological consultation, but little is known about the utility of either practice. We sought to characterize the patterns and yield of neuroimaging and neurological consultation for dizziness in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: We retrospectively identified consecutive adults presenting to an academic ED from 2007 to 2009, with a primary complaint of dizziness, vertigo, or imbalance. Neurologists reviewed medical records to determine clinical characteristics, whether a neuroimaging study (head computed tomography [CT] or brain magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]) or neurology consultation was obtained in the ED, and to identify relevant findings on neuroimaging studies. Two neurologists assigned a final diagnosis for the cause of dizziness. Logistic regression was used to evaluate bivariate and multivariate predictors of neuroimaging and consultation., Results: Of 907 dizzy patients (mean age 59 years; 58% women), 321 (35%) had a neuroimaging study (28% CT, 11% MRI, and 4% both) and 180 (20%) had neurological consultation. Serious neurological disease was ultimately diagnosed in 13% of patients with neuroimaging and 21% of patients with neurological consultation, compared to 5% of the overall cohort. Headache and focal neurological deficits were associated with both neuroimaging and neurological consultation, while age ≥60 years and prior stroke predicted neuroimaging but not consultation, and positional symptoms predicted consultation but not neuroimaging., Conclusion: In a tertiary care ED, neuroimaging and neurological consultation were frequently utilized to evaluate dizzy patients, and their diagnostic yield was substantial.