This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.
Abstract
Objective: Patients with TIA have high risk of recurrent stroke and require rapid assessment and treatment. The ABCD2 clinical risk prediction score is recommended for patient triage by stroke risk, but its ability to stratify by known risk factors and effect on clinic workload are unknown.
Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2005 and September 2014 that reported proportions of true TIA/minor stroke or mimics, risk factors, and recurrent stroke rates, dichotomized to ABCD2 score </≥4. We calculated the effect per 1,000 patients triaged on stroke prevention services.
Results: Twenty-nine studies, 13,766 TIA patients (range 69–1,679), were relevant: 48% calculated the ABCD2 score retrospectively; few reported on the ABCD2 score's ability to identify TIA mimics or use by nonspecialists. Meta-analysis showed that ABCD2 ≥4 was sensitive (86.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81.4%–90.7%) but not specific (35.4%, 95% CI 33.3%–37.6%) for recurrent stroke within 7 days. Additionally, 20% of patients with ABCD2 <4 had >50% carotid stenosis or atrial fibrillation (AF); 35%–41% of TIA mimics, and 66% of true TIAs, had ABCD2 score ≥4. Among 1,000 patients attending stroke prevention services, including the 45% with mimics, 52% of patients would have an ABCD2 score ≥4.
Conclusion: The ABCD2 score does not reliably discriminate those at low and high risk of early recurrent stroke, identify patients with carotid stenosis or AF needing urgent intervention, or streamline clinic workload. Stroke prevention services need adequate capacity for prompt specialist clinical assessment of all suspected TIA patients for correct patient management.
GLOSSARY
- AF=
- atrial fibrillation;
- CI=
- confidence interval;
- OR=
- odds ratio;
- ROC=
- receiver operator characteristic
Footnotes
Go to Neurology.org for full disclosures. Funding information and disclosures deemed relevant by the authors, if any, are provided at the end of the article.
Editorial, page 304
Supplemental data at Neurology.org
- Received May 29, 2014.
- Accepted in final form February 23, 2015.
- © 2015 American Academy of Neurology
AAN Members
We have changed the login procedure to improve access between AAN.com and the Neurology journals. If you are experiencing issues, please log out of AAN.com and clear history and cookies. (For instructions by browser, please click the instruction pages below). After clearing, choose preferred Journal and select login for AAN Members. You will be redirected to a login page where you can log in with your AAN ID number and password. When you are returned to the Journal, your name should appear at the top right of the page.
AAN Non-Member Subscribers
Purchase access
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
- Patient assessment for secondary stroke prevention
- Risk Stratification for TIA Patients in a "Real World"
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within 6 months of issue date.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.