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.
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.
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Louis R Caplan; J Donald Easton; Pierre B Fayad; J P Mohr; Jeffrey L Saver; David G Sherman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-11-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: M E Moseley; Y Cohen; J Kucharczyk; J Mintorovitch; H S Asgari; M F Wendland; J Tsuruda; D Norman Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-08 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: H Ay; F S Buonanno; G Rordorf; P W Schaefer; L H Schwamm; O Wu; R G Gonzalez; K Yamada; G A Sorensen; W J Koroshetz Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-06-10 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Francisco Purroy; Joan Montaner; Alex Rovira; Pilar Delgado; Manuel Quintana; José Alvarez-Sabín Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-08-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Vanja C Douglas; Clarissa M Johnston; Jacob Elkins; Stephen Sidney; Daryl R Gress; S Claiborne Johnston Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-11-13 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Aurélien Quenault; Sara Martinez de Lizarrondo; Olivier Etard; Maxime Gauberti; Cyrille Orset; Benoît Haelewyn; Helen C Segal; Peter M Rothwell; Denis Vivien; Emmanuel Touzé; Carine Ali Journal: Brain Date: 2016-11-08 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Jonathan T Kleinman; Greg Zaharchuk; Michael Mlynash; Alyshia A Ogdie; Matus Straka; Maarten G Lansberg; Neil E Schwartz; Stephanie Kemp; Roland Bammer; Gregory W Albers; Jean-Marc Olivot Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joanna M Wardlaw; Miriam Brazzelli; Francesca M Chappell; Hector Miranda; Kirsten Shuler; Peter A G Sandercock; Martin S Dennis Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: X J Qiao; N Salamon; D J J Wang; R He; M Linetsky; B M Ellingson; W B Pope Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-05-30 Impact factor: 3.825