Abstract

BackgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Identifying the aetiology of ischaemic stroke is essential in order to initiate appropriate and timely secondary prevention measures to reduce the risk of recurrence. For the majority of ischaemic strokes, the aetiology can be readily identified, but in at least 30% of cases, the exact aetiology cannot be determined using existing investigative protocols. Such strokes are classed as ‘cryptogenic’ or as a stroke of unknown origin. However, there exists substantial variation in clinical practice when investigating cases of seemingly cryptogenic stroke, often reflecting local service availability and the preferences of treating clinicians. This variation in practice is compounded by the lack of international consensus as to the optimum level and timing of investigations required following a stroke. To address this gap, we aim to systematically review and compare recommendations in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that relate to the assessment and investigation of the aetiology of ischaemic stroke, and any subsequent diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke.MethodWe will search for CPGs using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), EMBASE, and CINAHL), relevant websites and search engines (e.g. guideline specific websites, governmental, charitable, and professional practice organisations) and hand-searching of bibliographies and reference lists. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and CPGs using a pre-defined relevance criteria form. From each included CPG, we will extract definitions and terms for cryptogenic stroke; recommendations related to assessment and investigation of the aetiology of stroke, including the grade of recommendations and underpinning evidence. The quality of the included CPGs will be assessed using the AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) tool. Recommendations across the CPGs will be summarised descriptively highlighting areas of convergence and divergence between CPGs.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this will be the first review to systematically compare recommendations of international CPGs on investigating the aetiology of ischaemic stroke. The findings will allow for a better understanding of international perspectives on the optimum level of investigations required following a stroke and thus contribute to achieving greater international consensus on best practice in this important and complex area.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42019127822.

Highlights

  • Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide

  • The findings will allow for a better understanding of international perspectives on the optimum level of investigations required following a stroke and contribute to achieving greater international consensus on best practice in this important and complex area

  • Most ischaemic strokes are caused by atherosclerosis or arteriosclerosis of the blood vessels within the brain, or embolism originating from the heart or the major extracranial blood vessels, in at least 30% of cases, the exact aetiology of an ischaemic stroke is not identifiable by existing investigative protocols [8]; this is classed as a cryptogenic stroke or stroke of unknown origin

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Identifying the aetiology of ischaemic stroke is essential in order to initiate appropriate and timely secondary prevention measures to reduce the risk of recurrence. There exists substantial variation in clinical practice when investigating cases of seemingly cryptogenic stroke, often reflecting local service availability and the preferences of treating clinicians This variation in practice is compounded by the lack of international consensus as to the optimum level and timing of investigations required following a stroke. Standard diagnostic workup of patients tends to include brain imaging, vascular imaging and cardiac evaluations [8] If these investigations fail to identify the aetiology of the stroke, further investigations tend to depend on local service availability and on the preference of the treating clinician. Patients whose stroke is labelled as cryptogenic are unable to take steps to reduce their risk of a subsequent stroke

Objectives
Methods
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call