Why the study?
Do ABCD and ABCD2 scores predict long-term stroke risk in TIA clinic outpatients?
Do ABCD and ABCD2 scores predict long-term stroke risk in TIA clinic outpatients?
ABCD and ABCD2 scores ≥3 are clinically useful for identifying TIA outpatients at increased risk of stroke in the medium to long term.
Higher ABCD2 scores were associated with long-term stroke risk after TIA; leaves open utility for outpatient risk stratification.
BACKGROUND: The ABCD and ABCD2 scores have been validated for use as predictors of stroke in community populations up to 90 days after a transient ischemic attack (TIA). TIA outpatient clinics may see a selective group of patients who have not had an early stroke but may be at raised risk in the medium to long term and therefore benefit from preventive treatment. AIM: To describe the prognostic values of the ABCD and ABCD2 scores on long-term stroke risk. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of TIA clinic outpatients followed for up to 14 years. METHODS: Absolute and relative stroke risks, Kaplan-Meier survival curves and cumulative stroke incidence were calculated. Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (ROCs) and areas under the curve were calculated for both scores. RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-five patients were included and 138 (17.3%) experienced a stroke within 13.8 years follow-up after first TIA clinic visit, a crude risk of 26.3 per 1000 person-years. Compared with baseline scores of 0-2, risk ratios for ABCD of 3-4 were 2.95 (95% CI 1.52-6.40), and for 5-6 were 3.42 (95% CI 1.72-7.54); for the ABCD2, risk ratios for 3-4 were 2.68 (95% CI 1.37-5.84), and for 5-7 were 3.55 (95% CI 1.80-7.79). Scores of > or = 3 for either ABCD or ABCD2 predicted raised stroke risks at 90 days, 1, 5 and 10 years. Areas under the curve were 0.619 (95% CI 0.571-0.668) and 0.630 (95% CI 0.582-0.677) for the ABCD and ABCD2 scores, respectively. CONCLUSION: ABCD and ABCD2 scores of > or = 3 may be clinically useful in identifying TIA outpatients at raised risk of stroke in the medium to long term.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harrison et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: