Joanna M Wardlaw1, Miriam Brazzelli2, Francesca M Chappell2, Hector Miranda2, Kirsten Shuler2, Peter A G Sandercock2, Martin S Dennis2. 1. From the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (J.M.W., F.M.C., K.S., P.A.G.S., M.S.D.), University of Edinburgh; the Health Services Research Unit (M.B.), University of Aberdeen, UK; the Department of Neurology (H.M.), Santiago, Chile; and the Scottish Imaging Network (J.M.W., F.M.C., K.S., P.A.G.S.), A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE), Inverness, Scotland. joanna.wardlaw@ed.ac.uk. 2. From the Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences (J.M.W., F.M.C., K.S., P.A.G.S., M.S.D.), University of Edinburgh; the Health Services Research Unit (M.B.), University of Aberdeen, UK; the Department of Neurology (H.M.), Santiago, Chile; and the Scottish Imaging Network (J.M.W., F.M.C., K.S., P.A.G.S.), A Platform for Scientific Excellence (SINAPSE), Inverness, Scotland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Patients with TIA have high risk of recurrent stroke and require rapid assessment and treatment. The ABCD2 clinical risk prediction score is recommended for patient triage by stroke risk, but its ability to stratify by known risk factors and effect on clinic workload are unknown. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2005 and September 2014 that reported proportions of true TIA/minor stroke or mimics, risk factors, and recurrent stroke rates, dichotomized to ABCD2 score </≥4. We calculated the effect per 1,000 patients triaged on stroke prevention services. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies, 13,766 TIA patients (range 69-1,679), were relevant: 48% calculated the ABCD2 score retrospectively; few reported on the ABCD2 score's ability to identify TIA mimics or use by nonspecialists. Meta-analysis showed that ABCD2 ≥4 was sensitive (86.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81.4%-90.7%) but not specific (35.4%, 95% CI 33.3%-37.6%) for recurrent stroke within 7 days. Additionally, 20% of patients with ABCD2 <4 had >50% carotid stenosis or atrial fibrillation (AF); 35%-41% of TIA mimics, and 66% of true TIAs, had ABCD2 score ≥4. Among 1,000 patients attending stroke prevention services, including the 45% with mimics, 52% of patients would have an ABCD2 score ≥4. CONCLUSION: The ABCD2 score does not reliably discriminate those at low and high risk of early recurrent stroke, identify patients with carotid stenosis or AF needing urgent intervention, or streamline clinic workload. Stroke prevention services need adequate capacity for prompt specialist clinical assessment of all suspected TIA patients for correct patient management.
OBJECTIVE:Patients with TIA have high risk of recurrent stroke and require rapid assessment and treatment. The ABCD2 clinical risk prediction score is recommended for patient triage by stroke risk, but its ability to stratify by known risk factors and effect on clinic workload are unknown. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2005 and September 2014 that reported proportions of true TIA/minor stroke or mimics, risk factors, and recurrent stroke rates, dichotomized to ABCD2 score </≥4. We calculated the effect per 1,000 patients triaged on stroke prevention services. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies, 13,766 TIApatients (range 69-1,679), were relevant: 48% calculated the ABCD2 score retrospectively; few reported on the ABCD2 score's ability to identify TIA mimics or use by nonspecialists. Meta-analysis showed that ABCD2 ≥4 was sensitive (86.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81.4%-90.7%) but not specific (35.4%, 95% CI 33.3%-37.6%) for recurrent stroke within 7 days. Additionally, 20% of patients with ABCD2 <4 had >50% carotid stenosis or atrial fibrillation (AF); 35%-41% of TIA mimics, and 66% of true TIAs, had ABCD2 score ≥4. Among 1,000 patients attending stroke prevention services, including the 45% with mimics, 52% of patients would have an ABCD2 score ≥4. CONCLUSION: The ABCD2 score does not reliably discriminate those at low and high risk of early recurrent stroke, identify patients with carotid stenosis or AF needing urgent intervention, or streamline clinic workload. Stroke prevention services need adequate capacity for prompt specialist clinical assessment of all suspected TIApatients for correct patient management.
Authors: Orla C Sheehan; Aine Merwick; Lisa A Kelly; Niamh Hannon; Michael Marnane; Lorraine Kyne; Patricia M E McCormack; Joseph Duggan; Alan Moore; Joan Moroney; Leslie Daly; Dawn Harris; Gillian Horgan; Peter J Kelly Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-09-10 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Iacopo Cancelli; Francesco Janes; Gian Luigi Gigli; Anna Perelli; Barbara Zanchettin; Giessica Canal; Lucio D'Anna; Valentina Russo; Fabio Barbone; Mariarosaria Valente Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: D Ghia; P Thomas; D Cordato; D Epstein; R G Beran; C Cappelen-Smith; N Griffith; I Hanna; A McDougall; S J Hodgkinson; J M Worthington Journal: Intern Med J Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 2.048
Authors: Brett L Cucchiara; Steve R Messe; Lauren Sansing; Larami MacKenzie; Robert A Taylor; James Pacelli; Qaisar Shah; Eleanor S Pollak; Scott E Kasner Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2009 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: David Bradley; Simon Cronin; Justin A Kinsella; W Oliver Tobin; Ciara Mahon; Margaret O'Brien; Róisín Lonergan; Marie Therese Cooney; Sean Kennelly; D Rónán Collins; Desmond O'Neill; Tara Coughlan; Shane Smyth; Dominick J H McCabe Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2013-07-17 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Hakan Ay; E Murat Arsava; S Claiborne Johnston; Mark Vangel; Lee H Schwamm; Karen L Furie; Walter J Koroshetz; A Gregory Sorensen Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Andrew W Asimos; Anna M Johnson; Wayne D Rosamond; Marlow F Price; Kathryn M Rose; Diane Catellier; Carol V Murphy; Sam Singh; Charles H Tegeler; Ana Felix Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Bernard P Chang; Sara Rostanski; Joshua Willey; Eliza C Miller; Steven Shapiro; Rachel Mehendale; Benjamin Kummer; Babak B Navi; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Shadi Yaghi; Sara K Rostanski; Amelia K Boehme; Sheryl Martin-Schild; Alyana Samai; Brian Silver; Christina A Blum; Mahesh V Jayaraman; Matthew S Siket; Muhib Khan; Karen L Furie; Mitchell S V Elkind; Randolph S Marshall; Joshua Z Willey Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Irene L Katzan; Andrew Schuster; Lynn Daboul; Christine Doherty; Sidra Speaker; Ken Uchino; Brittany Lapin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-07-01