Key result
Cryptogenic stroke accounts for 25% of ischemic strokes and lacks standardized diagnostic strategies, prompting the introduction of the embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) construct.
This review provides an overview of the definitions, diagnostic evaluation, and management strategies for cryptogenic stroke and embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS).
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Emphasizes diagnostic gaps in cryptogenic stroke; leaves open standardized ESUS management pending prospective trials.
Although in the last few years emerging conventional and unconventional radiological and laboratory techniques have shed light on different pathophysiologic causes of stroke, nowadays almost 25% of ischemic strokes results of undetermined etiology. Different diagnostic criteria have been developed to define cryptogenic stroke and to establish its prevalence in stroke units. Different studies tried to unravel mechanisms of cryptogenic stroke and to evaluate adequate primary and secondary preventive measures, but standardized diagnostic and therapeutic strategies are still missing. In this review we report the most relevant updated notions in cryptogenic stroke providing an overview of the definition, the recommendations for diagnostic evaluation and the updated treatment strategies for secondary prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stornello et al. (2016) conducted a review in Cryptogenic stroke. Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies was evaluated. Cryptogenic stroke accounts for 25% of ischemic strokes and lacks standardized diagnostic strategies, prompting the introduction of the embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) construct.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: