BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate whether the time period of transcranial Doppler monitoring for embolic signals can be reduced without loss of clinical yield compared with routinely performed 1-hour monitoring. METHODS: Investigations on the basis of a post hoc analysis of a previously published cohort of 86 patients (55 men, 31 women; mean age 60.6 years) with a nondisabling arterioembolic ischemic event in the anterior circulation within the last 30 days (mean 7.3) and an ipsilateral medium-grade or high-grade stenosis of the carotid or middle cerebral artery. Patients underwent 1-hour monitoring for embolic signals and were followed up prospectively for 6 weeks to evaluate the relationship between embolic signals and risk of an early ischemic recurrence. Risk was also calculated after fictitious reduction of the monitoring period from 60 minutes to 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 minutes, respectively, and compared with the results obtained from the 1-hour period. RESULTS: The number of patients positive for embolic signals decreased with the decreasing monitoring period. By this, the odds ratio of embolic signals for an early ischemic recurrence "decreased" from 40 (derived from the 1-hour monitoring) to 10 when the monitoring lasted < or =30 minutes. The relationship between the rate of embolic signals per hour and risk of a recurrent stroke is described by an S-shaped curve. As a consequence, risk estimated from reduced monitoring periods can differ considerably from that derived from the 1-hour monitoring if the signal frequency lies within a medium range (eg, between 3 and 15 signals in 30 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The time period of monitoring for embolic signals may be reduced without loss of clinical relevant information when signal frequency is low or already high during the reduced monitoring period, but it should be prolonged to maximally an hour at signal numbers within a medium range. However, our results need to be externally validated on an independent cohort of patients or confirmed by a prospective study before this modification can be recommended in general.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate whether the time period of transcranial Doppler monitoring for embolic signals can be reduced without loss of clinical yield compared with routinely performed 1-hour monitoring. METHODS: Investigations on the basis of a post hoc analysis of a previously published cohort of 86 patients (55 men, 31 women; mean age 60.6 years) with a nondisabling arterioembolic ischemic event in the anterior circulation within the last 30 days (mean 7.3) and an ipsilateral medium-grade or high-grade stenosis of the carotid or middle cerebral artery. Patients underwent 1-hour monitoring for embolic signals and were followed up prospectively for 6 weeks to evaluate the relationship between embolic signals and risk of an early ischemic recurrence. Risk was also calculated after fictitious reduction of the monitoring period from 60 minutes to 50, 40, 30, 20, and 10 minutes, respectively, and compared with the results obtained from the 1-hour period. RESULTS: The number of patients positive for embolic signals decreased with the decreasing monitoring period. By this, the odds ratio of embolic signals for an early ischemic recurrence "decreased" from 40 (derived from the 1-hour monitoring) to 10 when the monitoring lasted < or =30 minutes. The relationship between the rate of embolic signals per hour and risk of a recurrent stroke is described by an S-shaped curve. As a consequence, risk estimated from reduced monitoring periods can differ considerably from that derived from the 1-hour monitoring if the signal frequency lies within a medium range (eg, between 3 and 15 signals in 30 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: The time period of monitoring for embolic signals may be reduced without loss of clinical relevant information when signal frequency is low or already high during the reduced monitoring period, but it should be prolonged to maximally an hour at signal numbers within a medium range. However, our results need to be externally validated on an independent cohort of patients or confirmed by a prospective study before this modification can be recommended in general.
Authors: Martin A Ritter; Ralf Dittrich; Niels Thoenissen; E Bernd Ringelstein; Darius G Nabavi Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Eva A Rocha; Felipe Rocha; Izadora Deliberalli; João Brainer C de Andrade; Irapuá F Ricarte; Aneesh B Singhal; Gisele S Silva Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.210