4.6 Article

Risk of early recurrent stroke in symptomatic carotid stenosis after best medical therapy and before endarterectomy

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 41-51

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1747493015609777

Keywords

Ischemic stroke; recurrent event; carotid stenosis; dual antiplatelet therapy; carotid endarterectomy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: The early recurrence of neurological symptoms (NR) after urgent aggressive best medical therapy (BMT) in symptomatic carotid stenosis is not well documented. Aims: To investigate the risk of ipsilateral NR after urgent aggressive BMT in patients with symptomatic (50-99%) carotid stenosis up to carotid endarterectomy (CEA), with emphasis on the first 14 days after index-event. Methods: Prospective population based study, covering a period of 4 1/2 years. NR rate was determined after initiation of urgent aggressive BMT and until CEA and compared to NR up to 90 days prior to index-event. Urgent BMT consisted of loading dose aspirin and clopidogrel thereafter therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel together with a statin. Results: Of 8200 symptomatic patients (ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack and ocular events), 250 (3%) patients underwent CEA, 47% within 14 days of the index-event and 99% within 14 days of surgical referral. The overall NR from index-event to CEA in symptomatic patients was significantly lower 1.6% (95% CI 0.5-4%) after BMT when compared with NR in the 90 days prior to referral to a stroke clinic 25% (95% CI 20-30%, p<0.00001). Peri-operative bleeding 5% (95% CI 3-8%) was comparable with other studies. Conclusion: Urgent aggressive BMT after index-event is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of early NR in CEA candidates. The early risk of recurrent stroke in patients with symptomatic significant carotid stenosis is dramatically reduced after urgent aggressive BMT in specialised stroke clinics.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available