Secondary Ischemic Stroke Research Articles

Did the Introduction of a Prospective Payment System for Nursing Home Stays Reduce the Likelihood of Pharmacological Management of Secondary Ischaemic Stroke?

Since 1998, a prospective payment system (PPS) for Medicare services provided by nursing homes in the US has been in operation. Concerns have been expressed that the PPS may affect the quality of care delivered to residents. This study evaluates the impact of the PPS on pharmacological secondary ischaemic stroke prevention in nursing homes. The nationally mandated Minimum Data Set and Online Survey Certification and Automated Record data system from 1997 and 2000 for four states were used. We conducted a quasi-experimental study comparing the pharmacological treatment rates for secondary stroke prevention in the pre-PPS period (1997) with those in the post-PPS period (2000) in residents who experienced an ischaemic stroke within 6 months (n1997 = 5008; n2000 = 5243) of living in nursing facilities (n1997 = 1226; n2000 = 1092) in Kansas, Maine, Mississippi or Ohio. The sample was stratified according to recommendations for use of warfarin. Logistic regression models adjusting for clustering effects of residents residing in homes using generalised estimating equations provided estimates of the PPS effect on use of antiplatelets and the use of warfarin. The unadjusted proportion of use of pharmacological agents for the secondary prevention of stroke was similar for warfarin in both time periods and increased for antiplatelets in 2000. Relative to the pre-PPS era, the likelihood of use of antiplatelets increased in the post-PPS era (adjusted odds ratio 1.26; 95% CI 1.15, 1.38); there was no effect on the use of warfarin. Although the lack of a PPS effect on pharmacological management of secondary ischaemic stroke is encouraging, there is still room for improvement in overall stroke management.

A survey on adherence to secondary ischemic stroke prevention

Reduced adherence and compliance to discharge instructions and protocols could significantly influence the ability of any stroke prevention strategy. The goals of this investigation were to evaluate the adherence to secondary prevention strategies within 1 year after ischemic stroke and to identify possible causes of poor compliance with these strategies. Patients who had suffered either acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attacks (TIA) were recruited retrospectively through telephone follow-up. The survey included whether the patient was prescribed antithrombotic treatment at discharge and reasons for non-compliance with this prescription both immediately after discharge and 1 year after discharge. Of 472 (73.8%) patients with detailed clinical data who were finally evaluated in this survey, 326 (69.1%) were still under antithrombotic treatment and 172 (36.4%) underwent the same antithrombotic agent as prescribed when discharged. We found that medical insurance and free medical care were able to promote compliance with medication in stroke patients for secondary prevention, while administration of non-aspirin antithrombotic agents or a poor ability for daily activities (Barthel index, BI) had significantly negative effects on medication compliance in stroke patients. Under the conditions of this observational study, adherence to stroke prevention strategies was poor. Income levels, categories of antithrombotic agents and the personal living ability are closely related to compliance. The results suggest that doctors should pay more attention to the secondary prevention of stroke. We suggest that providing stroke patients with detailed instructions for medication usage, physicians could increase the potential that their secondary prevention of stroke could be increased.

Direct Medical Costs Attributable to Acute Myocardial Infarction and Ischemic Stroke in Cohorts with Atherosclerotic Conditions

Background: The cost of acute ischemic events in persons with established atherosclerotic conditions is unknown. Methods: The direct medical costs attributable to secondary acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or ischemic stroke among persons with established atherosclerotic conditions were estimated from 1995–1998 data on 1,143 patients enrolled in US managed care plans. Results: The average 180-day costs attributable to secondary AMI or stroke were estimated as USD 19,056 in the AMI cohort having a private insurance (commercial; n = 344), USD 16,845 in the AMI cohort having government insurance (Medicare, age ≧65 years; n = 200), USD 10,267 for stroke commercial (n = 108), USD 16,280 for stroke Medicare (n = 113), USD 15,224 for peripheral arterial disease commercial (n = 170), and USD 15,182 for peripheral arterial disease Medicare (n = 208). Conclusion: These estimates can be used to study the cost-effectiveness of interventions proven to reduce these secondary events.

Elective stenting for symptomatic middle cerebral artery stenosis presenting as transient ischaemic deficits or stroke attacks: short term arteriographical and clinical outcome

Background: Although stent assisted angioplasty is an effective treatment for coronary and peripheral arterial disease, its efficacy in intracranial arteriosclerotic disease has not been verified. Objectives: To assess the radiographic...

Triflusal vs. Aspirin for the Prevention of Infarction: a Randomized Stroke Study (TAPIRSS)

P208 Background: TAPIRSS is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter pilot trial designed to study the efficacy of triflusal for the prevention of secondary ischemic stroke conducted in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent structurally related to aspirin. Methods and Results: From October 1996 to October 1999 patients were randomized to group #1 (aspirin therapy, 325 mg/daily) or group #2 (triflusal, 600 mg/daily). All patients had experienced either an ischemic stroke (80.9%) or a transient ischemic attack within 6 months prior to randomization. Patients were treated for a median of 586 days. Data for 429 patients were analyzed. Primary endpoints were: cardiovascular death 3.7%(#1)/2.3%(#2)[OR=1.6]; cerebral ischemic infarction 7.4%(#1)/8.0%(#2)[OR=0.92]; non-fatal myocardial infarction 2.3%(#1)/1.9%(#2)[OR=1.24];severe hemorrhage any kind 3.2%(#1)/0.5%(#2)[OR=7.1][p=0.068]. Secondary endpoints were: non-vascular death 2.4%(#1)/0.5%(#2)[OR=5.02]; non-severe hemorrhage 6.0%(#1)/2.3%(#2)[OR=2.66][p=0.058]; systemic thromboembolism 0.9%(#1)/1.4%(#2)[OR=0.65]. Aggregate analysis of primary endpoints showed no significant differences between aspirin and triflusal. Aggregate analysis of secondary enpoints showed a significant difference in favor of triflusal [p=0.038]. Analysis of the combination severe and non-severe hemorrhage showed a significantly reduced incidence of hemorrhagic events with triflusal [8.3%(#1)/2.8%(#2), p=0.013]. Dyspepsia and gastrointestinal discomfort were the most common adverse events in the triflusal group. Conclusions: Triflusal shows a protective effect similar to aspirin in the prevention of secondary ischemic stroke with a lesser risk of hemorrhagic complications. Also, triflusal may be safe for the primary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Triflusal vs. Aspirin for the Prevention of Infarction: a Randomized Stroke Study (TAPIRSS)

P208 Background: TAPIRSS is a randomized, double-blind, multicenter pilot trial designed to study the efficacy of triflusal for the prevention of secondary ischemic stroke conducted in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent structurally related to aspirin. Methods and Results: From October 1996 to October 1999 patients were randomized to group #1 (aspirin therapy, 325 mg/daily) or group #2 (triflusal, 600 mg/daily). All patients had experienced either an ischemic stroke (80.9%) or a transient ischemic attack within 6 months prior to randomization. Patients were treated for a median of 586 days. Data for 429 patients were analyzed. Primary endpoints were: cardiovascular death 3.7%(#1)/2.3%(#2)[OR=1.6]; cerebral ischemic infarction 7.4%(#1)/8.0%(#2)[OR=0.92]; non-fatal myocardial infarction 2.3%(#1)/1.9%(#2)[OR=1.24];severe hemorrhage any kind 3.2%(#1)/0.5%(#2)[OR=7.1][p=0.068]. Secondary endpoints were: non-vascular death 2.4%(#1)/0.5%(#2)[OR=5.02]; non-severe hemorrhage 6.0%(#1)/2.3%(#2)[OR=2.66][p=0.058]; systemic thromboembolism 0.9%(#1)/1.4%(#2)[OR=0.65]. Aggregate analysis of primary endpoints showed no significant differences between aspirin and triflusal. Aggregate analysis of secondary enpoints showed a significant difference in favor of triflusal [p=0.038]. Analysis of the combination severe and non-severe hemorrhage showed a significantly reduced incidence of hemorrhagic events with triflusal [8.3%(#1)/2.8%(#2), p=0.013]. Dyspepsia and gastrointestinal discomfort were the most common adverse events in the triflusal group. Conclusions: Triflusal shows a protective effect similar to aspirin in the prevention of secondary ischemic stroke with a lesser risk of hemorrhagic complications. Also, triflusal may be safe for the primary prevention of ischemic stroke.

Economic assessment of the secondary prevention of ischaemic events with lysine acetylsalicylate.

To analyse the economic benefits, in comparison with placebo, of the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) with lysine acetylsalicylate (Kardégic) in patients with a history of ischaemic stroke, MI or stable and unstable angina pectoris. This was a modelling study from the perspectives of direct medical costs, the social security system and society in France. Efficacy data for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events were derived from the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis on antithrombotics. The rates and costs of ischaemic disease and of serious gastrointestinal adverse affects arising from long term aspirin treatment, as well as the costs of treatment with lysine acetylsalicylate, were taken from published sources, using French data where possible. From the social security perspective, the estimated cost-effectiveness ratios show that the prevention of MI in patients with a history of unstable angina (with a 1-year follow-up) is a cost-saving strategy, with net benefits ranging from $US5703 (1996 prices) per avoided MI for lysine acetylsalicylate 300 mg/day to $US5761 per avoided MI for lysine acetylsalicylate 75 mg/day. The prevention of MI and stroke is also a cost-saving strategy in patients with prior MI [net benefits in a 2-year follow-up (5% discount rate) ranging from $US15 to $US494 per avoided MI and from $US37 to $US1170 per avoided stroke]. This was also true in patients with prior ischaemic stroke (net benefits in a 3-year follow-up ranging from $US610 to $US2082 per avoided MI and from $US176 to $US599 per avoided stroke). Finally, a 4-year follow-up in patients with a history of stable angina pectoris shows that prophylactic treatment with lysine acetylsalicylate is associated with net costs per avoided MI, ranging from $US4375 to $US3608 per avoided event. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that prophylaxis with lysine acetylsalicylate in patients at high risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events results in savings in social security expenditure. Our results underline the high economic benefit of using lysine acetylsalicylate to prevent secondary ischaemic stroke and MI in patients at high risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular events, leading to savings for the social security system and society.

Effectiveness of Low-Dose ASA in Prevention of Secondary Ischemic Stroke, The ASA Study Group in Taiwan

This randomized double-blind controlled study was carried out to investigate the effect of 100 mg acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) per day on the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. Patients who suffered a first ischemic stroke from 13 participating hospitals were enrolled. They were independent or only partially dependent in activities of daily living and all had received brain CT for diagnosis. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to the 100 mg ASA or the nicametate citrate (a vasodilator) groups, and trial medications were started within three to six weeks after the onset of stroke. The primary end point was cerebral reinfarction, and intracranial hemorrhage was classified as an adverse event. Four hundred and sixty-six patients participated in this study; and 222 cases (136 males and 86 females) were allocated to the ASA group while 244 cases (150 males and 94 females) were assigned to the nicametate group. No significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups was observed. Cerebral reinfarction developed 6.3% (14222) in the ASA group and 11.9% (29244) in the nicametate group. According to the Cox's proportional hazards model, the estimated risk ratio (ASA group vs. nicametate group) was 0.538, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.284–1.019. The result was of borderline statistical significance. The risk for cerebral reinfarction was reduced by almost 50% among those who took 100 mg ASA versus those who took nicametate.© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd