Fredrik Ildstad1,2, Hanne Ellekjær1,2, Torgeir Wethal1,2, Stian Lydersen3, Hild Fjærtoft1,4, Bent Indredavik1,2. 1. Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. 2. Department of Medicine, Stroke Unit, Trondheim University Hospital, P.O. Box 3250, N-7006 Trondheim, Norway. 3. Regional Center for Child and Youth Mental Health and Child Welfare, NTNU, P.O. Box 8905, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. 4. Department of Medical Quality Registries, Trondheim University Hospital, P.O. Box 3250, N-7006 Trondheim, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the ABCD3-I score and compare it with the ABCD2 score in short- (1 week) and long-term (3 months; 1 year) stroke risk prediction in our post-TIA stroke risk study, MIDNOR TIA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study in Central Norway from 2012 to 2015, enrolling 577 patients with TIA. In a subset of patients with complete data for both scores (n = 305), we calculated the AUC statistics of the ABCD3-I score and compared this with the ABCD2 score. A telephone follow-up and registry data were used for assessing stroke occurrence. RESULTS: Within 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year, 1.0% (n = 3), 3.3% (n = 10), and 5.2% (n = 16) experienced a stroke, respectively. The AUCs for the ABCD3-I score were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89) at 1 week, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80) at 3 months, and 0.68 (0.95% CI, 0.56 to 0.79) at 1 year. The corresponding AUCs for the ABCD2 score were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.86), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68), and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The ABCD3-I score had limited value in a short-term prediction of subsequent stroke after TIA and did not reliably discriminate between low- and high-risk patients in a long-term follow-up. The ABCD2 score did not predict subsequent stroke accurately at any time point. Since there is a generally lower stroke risk after TIA during the last years, the benefit of these clinical risk scores and their role in TIA management seems limited. Clinical Trial Registration. This trial is registered with NCT02038725 (retrospectively registered, January 16, 2014).
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the ABCD3-I score and compare it with the ABCD2 score in short- (1 week) and long-term (3 months; 1 year) stroke risk prediction in our post-TIA stroke risk study, MIDNOR TIA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter study in Central Norway from 2012 to 2015, enrolling 577 patients with TIA. In a subset of patients with complete data for both scores (n = 305), we calculated the AUC statistics of the ABCD3-I score and compared this with the ABCD2 score. A telephone follow-up and registry data were used for assessing stroke occurrence. RESULTS: Within 1 week, 3 months, and 1 year, 1.0% (n = 3), 3.3% (n = 10), and 5.2% (n = 16) experienced a stroke, respectively. The AUCs for the ABCD3-I score were 0.72 (95% CI, 0.54 to 0.89) at 1 week, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80) at 3 months, and 0.68 (0.95% CI, 0.56 to 0.79) at 1 year. The corresponding AUCs for the ABCD2 score were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.24 to 0.86), 0.55 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68), and 0.63 (95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: The ABCD3-I score had limited value in a short-term prediction of subsequent stroke after TIA and did not reliably discriminate between low- and high-risk patients in a long-term follow-up. The ABCD2 score did not predict subsequent stroke accurately at any time point. Since there is a generally lower stroke risk after TIA during the last years, the benefit of these clinical risk scores and their role in TIA management seems limited. Clinical Trial Registration. This trial is registered with NCT02038725 (retrospectively registered, January 16, 2014).
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: Orla C Sheehan; Lorraine Kyne; Lisa A Kelly; Niamh Hannon; Michael Marnane; Aine Merwick; Patricia M E McCormack; Joseph Duggan; Alan Moore; Joan Moroney; Leslie Daly; Dawn Harris; Gillian Horgan; Emma B Williams; Peter J Kelly Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-03-18 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: F Purroy; P E Jiménez Caballero; A Gorospe; M J Torres; J Alvarez-Sabin; E Santamarina; P Martínez-Sánchez; D Cánovas; M M Freijo; J A Egido; J M Girón; J M Ramírez-Moreno; A Alonso; A Rodríguez-Campello; I Casado; R Delgado-Medeiros; J Martí-Fàbregas; B Fuentes; Y Silva; H Quesada; P Cardona; A Morales; N de la Ossa; A García-Pastor; J F Arenillas; T Segura; C Jiménez; J Masjuán Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2012-01-07 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Philippa C Lavallée; Elena Meseguer; Halim Abboud; Lucie Cabrejo; Jean-Marc Olivot; Olivier Simon; Mikael Mazighi; Chantal Nifle; Philippe Niclot; Bertrand Lapergue; Isabelle F Klein; Eric Brochet; Philippe Gabriel Steg; Guy Lesèche; Julien Labreuche; Pierre-Jean Touboul; Pierre Amarenco Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: S Claiborne Johnston; Peter M Rothwell; Mai N Nguyen-Huynh; Matthew F Giles; Jacob S Elkins; Allan L Bernstein; Stephen Sidney Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-01-27 Impact factor: 79.321