4.7 Article

Validation and Refinement of the ABCD2 Score A Population-Based Analysis

期刊

STROKE
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 2669-2673

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.553446

关键词

prediction; risk; score; stroke; TIA

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [R01 AR030582, R01 AR030582-43] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-Transient ischemic attacks are a frequent diagnosis in the emergency department setting, yet expert opinion as to the proper follow-up and need for hospitalization differs widely. Recently, an effort has been made to risk-stratify patients presenting with transient ischemic attacks through scoring systems such as the ABCD and ABCD2 scales. The aim of our study was to independently validate these scores using a population-based cohort. Methods-Using the data from the Rochester Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack Registry and resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project, medical records of all residents of Rochester, Minn, with a diagnosis of incident transient ischemic attack from 1985 through 1994 were examined (N = 284). Patients were scored on the ABCD and ABCD2 scales and new scores were created by adding hyperglycemia and a history of hypertension. The end points of stroke and death were collected previously and were verified through the Rochester Epidemiology Project data. Results-Although our study did find that scores > 4 had a statistically significant predictive value for future stroke, a substantial proportion of strokes within 7 days (9 of 36 cases [25%]) occurred in patients with low or intermediate risk scores (<= 4) on the ABCD2 scale. Including history of hypertension and hyperglycemia on presentation increased the sensitivity of the score to identify patients who had a stroke within 7 days. Conclusions-Reliance on the ABCD and ABCD2 scores misses some patients who will have a stroke within 7 days of a transient ischemic attack. Adding hyperglycemia and a history of hypertension to the predictive model could be useful, but the value of these additions need to be evaluated further. (Stroke. 2009; 40: 2669-2673.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据