Larry B. Goldstein

AHA Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke: 2002 Update Consensus Panel Guide to Comprehensive Risk Reduction for Adult Patients Without Coronary or Other Atherosclerotic Vascular Diseases

The initial Guide to the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases was published in 1997 as an aid to healthcare professionals and their patients without established coronary artery disease or other atherosclerotic diseases.1 It was intended to complement the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Guidelines for Preventing Heart Attack and Death in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (updated2) and to provide the healthcare professional with a comprehensive approach to patients across a wide spectrum of risk. The imperative to prevent the first episode of coronary disease or stroke or the development of aortic aneurysm and peripheral arterial disease remains as strong as ever because of the still-high rate of first events that are fatal or disabling or require expensive intensive medical care. The evidence that most cardiovascular disease is preventable continues to grow. Results of long-term prospective studies consistently identify persons with low levels of risk factors as having lifelong low levels of heart disease and stroke.3,4⇓ Moreover, these low levels of risk factors are related to healthy lifestyles. Data from the Nurses Health Study,5 for example, suggest that in women, maintaining a desirable body weight, eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, not smoking, and consuming a moderate amount of alcohol could account for an 84% reduction in risk, yet only 3% of the women studied were in that category. Clearly, the majority of the causes of cardiovascular disease are known and modifiable. This 2002 update of the Guide acknowledges a number of advances in the field of primary prevention since 1997. Research continues to refine the recommendations on detection and management of established risk factors, including evidence against the safety and efficacy of interventions once thought promising (eg, antioxidant vitamins).6 This, in turn, has …

Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of stroke among individuals who have not previously experienced a stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches to atherosclerotic disease of the cervicocephalic circulation, and antithrombotic treatments for preventing thrombotic and thromboembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for genetic and pharmacogenetic testing and for the prevention of stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including sickle cell disease and patent foramen ovale.

Guidelines for the Early Management of Patients With Ischemic Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the Stroke Council of the American Stroke Association

In 1994, a panel appointed by the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association authored guidelines for the management of patients with acute ischemic stroke.1 After the approval of the use of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) for treatment of acute ischemic stroke by the Food and Drug Administration, the guidelines were supplemented by a series of recommendations 2 years later.2 Several promising interventions for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke have subsequently been tested in clinical trials, and other components of acute management have been evaluated since the previous guidelines were published. These new data have prompted the present revision of the prior guideline statement. The goal of these guidelines is to provide updated recommendations that can be used by primary care physicians, emergency medicine physicians, neurologists, and other physicians who provide acute stroke care from admission to an emergency department through the first 24 to 48 hours of hospitalization by addressing the diagnosis and emergent treatment of the acute ischemic stroke in addition to the management of its acute and subacute neurological and medical complications. Several groups have now written statements about management of stroke.3–7 These statements also include recommendations about public educational programs, the organization of stroke resources, and other aspects of patient management. For example, the Brain Attack Coalition published recommendations for organizing stroke services in a community, and the recommendations of the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee provide an outline for emergency medical services.6 The current panel elected not to duplicate these recent efforts. Therapies to prevent recurrent stroke, also a component of acute management, are similar to prophylactic medical or surgical therapies used for patients with transient ischemic attacks and other high-risk patients. The reader is referred to relevant recent statements for additional information.8,9 In developing …

Guidelines for Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Ischemic Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Council on Stroke: Co-Sponsored by the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention: The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline.

The aim of this new statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of ischemic stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches for atherosclerotic disease, antithrombotic treatments for cardioembolism, and the use of antiplatelet agents for noncardioembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including arterial dissections; patent foramen ovale; hyperhomocysteinemia; hypercoagulable states; sickle cell disease; cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; stroke among women, particularly with regard to pregnancy and the use of postmenopausal hormones; the use of anticoagulation after cerebral hemorrhage; and special approaches for the implementation of guidelines and their use in high-risk populations.

Measurement of motor recovery after stroke. Outcome assessment and sample size requirements.

Background and Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze recovery of motor function in a cohort of patients presenting with an acute occlusion in the carotid distribution. Analysis of recovery patterns is important for estimating patient care needs, establishing therapeutic plans, and estimating sample sizes for clinical intervention trials. Methods We prospectively measured the motor deficits of 104 stroke patients over a 6-month period to identify earliest measures that would predict subsequent motor recovery. Motor function was measured with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment. Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to a training set for model development; 50 patients were assigned to a test set for model validation. In a second analysis, patients were stratified on basis of time and stroke severity. The sample size required to detect a 50% improvement in residual motor function was calculated for each level of impairment and at three points in time. Results At baseline the initial Fugl-Meyer motor scores accounted for only half the variance in 6-month motor function (r2=0.53, p<0.001). After 5 days, both the 5-day motor and sensory scores explained 74% of the variance (p<0.001). After 30 days, the 30-day motor score explained 86% of the variance (p<0.001). Application of these best models to the test set confirmed the results obtained with the training set. Sample-size calculations revealed that as severity and time since stroke increased, sample sizes required to detect a 50% improvement in residual motor deficits decreased. Conclusions Most of the variability in motor recovery can be explained by 30 days after stroke. These findings have important implications for clinical practice and research.

Diagnosis and management of cough executive summary: ACCP evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

Recognition of the importance of cough in clinical medicine was the impetus for the original evidence-based consensus panel report on “Managing Cough as a Defense Mechanism and as a Symptom,” published in 1998,1 and this updated revision. Compared to the original cough consensus statement, this revision (1) more narrowly focuses the guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of cough, the symptom, in adult and pediatric populations, and minimizes the discussion of cough as a defense mechanism; (2) improves on the rigor of the evidence-based review and describes the methodology in a separate section; (3) updates and expands, when appropriate, all previous sections; and (4) adds new sections with topics that were not previously covered. These new sections include nonasthmatic eosinophilic bronchitis (NAEB); acute bronchitis; nonbronchiectatic suppurative airway diseases; cough due to aspiration secondary to oral/pharyngeal dysphagia; environmental/occupational causes of cough; tuberculosis (TB) and other infections; cough in the dialysis patient; uncommon causes of cough; unexplained cough, previously referred to as idiopathic cough; an empiric integrative approach to the management of cough; assessing cough severity and efficacy of therapy in clinical research; potential future therapies; and future directions for research.

Recommendations for the Establishment of Stroke Systems of Care Recommendations From the American Stroke Association’s Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems

Stroke continues to be a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Approximately 700 000 Americans have a new or recurrent stroke each year, and stroke remains the third leading cause of death in the United States when considered independently from other cardiovascular diseases. Stroke also remains a leading cause of serious, long-term disability in the United States.1 Major advances have been made during the past several decades in stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation. Despite successes in delivering effective new therapies, significant obstacles remain in ensuring that scientific advances are consistently translated into clinical practice. In many instances, these obstacles can be related to a fragmentation of stroke-related care caused by inadequate integration of the various facilities, agencies, and professionals that should closely collaborate in providing stroke care. There is increased emphasis on improving the components of stroke care, including recommendations from the Brain Attack Coalition for primary stroke centers and a formal process provided through the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) for the certification of primary stroke centers.2–4 It is critically important to look carefully at how the distinct components can be better integrated into systems of stroke care. The American Stroke Association (ASA), a division of the American Heart Association (AHA), is dedicated to improving stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation through research, education, advocacy, and the development and application of scientifically based standards and guidelines. The ASA convened a multidisciplinary group, the Task Force on the Development of Stroke Systems, to describe the current fragmentation of stroke care, to define the key components of a stroke system, and to recommend methods for encouraging the implementation of stroke systems. The term “stroke system” is used in this article to avoid the corporate and financial connotations associated with the words “network” and …

Update to the AHA/ASA Recommendations for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack

The American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) Writing Committee for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack (TIA) has reviewed the results of recent trials that were published after our previous recommendations were issued.1 Our intention in the present statement is to provide a brief review of the new data, to update specific recommendations, and to provide the reasons for any modifications. The 2 areas in which major new clinical trials have been published are (1) the use of specific antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention in patients with a history of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA and (2) the use of statins in the prevention of recurrent stroke. Recently published trials have added to the evidence of the benefit of the use of specific antiplatelet agents for stroke prevention in patients with a history of noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA. The secondary prevention guidelines1 have been updated to reflect this new evidence. ### Addition of Clopidogrel to Aspirin for Prevention of Vascular Events The Clopidogrel and Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone for the Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events (CHARISMA) trial2 was a double-blinded study that randomized 15 603 subjects with cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease to either clopidogrel 75 mg plus low-dose aspirin (75 to 162 mg) or placebo plus aspirin (75 to 162 mg). Roughly 35% of subjects (n=4320) qualified on the basis of the presence of cerebrovascular disease within 5 years of enrollment; approximately a third experienced TIA. The median follow-up was 28 months. No significant differences were seen in the rates of nonfatal ischemic stroke between the 2 groups (1.7% versus 2.1%, P =0.07). The placebo plus aspirin group showed a higher rate of nonfatal stroke than did the clopidogrel group (1.9% versus 2.4%, P =0.03). The 2 groups experienced no differences in the rate of intracerebral hemorrhage …

Reliability of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale: Extension to Non-Neurologists in the Context of a Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The reliability of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) has been established through testing its use in live and videotaped patients. This reliability testing has primarily focused on the use of the scale by neurologists. We sought to determine the reliability of the NIHSS as used by non-neurologists in the context of a clinical trial. METHODS In anticipation of the initiation of a randomized trial of a new therapy for patients with acute ischemic stroke, 30 physician investigators (30% of whom were not neurologists) and 29 non-physician study coordinators were trained in the use of the NIHSS at an informational and training conference using standardized videotaped patient examinations. A series of 4 patients were rated initially. After 3 months, the same 4 patients were rerated, providing a measure of intraobserver reliability. An additional series of 4 new patients were also rated after 3 months and, with the initial 4 ratings, provided data for assessment of interobserver reliability. RESULTS Overall, 28% of the raters had previous experience with the NIHSS, and 22% had previously used the videotapes as used in the present trial. The coefficients of determination (r2) were each greater than .95 when the means of the two ratings of the same 4 cases were compared between (1) neurologists and other types of physicians, (2) physicians and study coordinators, (3) raters who had prior experience with the NIHSS and those without prior experience, and (4) raters who had used the videotapes in the past and those who had never viewed the tapes. The calculated r2s were greater than .98 for the initial rating of the first 4 cases and for the later rating of the 4 new cases. The slopes of the regression lines were all near 1, indicating that the raters were similarly calibrated. The intraclass correlation coefficients were .93 and .95, reflecting high levels of intraobserver and interobserver reliability. CONCLUSIONS These data extend the previously demonstrated reliability of the NIHSS to non-neurologists and show that both a variety of physician investigators and nurse study coordinators can be rapidly trained to reliably apply the scale in the context of an actual clinical trial.

Preventing Ischemic Stroke in Patients With Prior Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Stroke Council of the American Heart Association

Stroke, the third leading cause of death in the United States, is a leading cause of adult neurological disability and accounts for the greatest number of hospitalizations for neurological disease. Although treatment of acute stroke has the potential of reducing death and disability, it is likely that prevention will more effectively reduce the ravages of stroke. The patient who is recovering from a mild stroke or who has had a recent transient ischemic attack (TIA) is at high risk of stroke recurrence, physical and intellectual disability, long-term institutionalization, and death. There is substantial evidence from observational epidemiological studies and clinical trials that recurrent ischemic stroke can be prevented (Table 1⇓). Control of risk factors is important for prevention of a first stroke and is practical after ischemic stroke and TIA have occurred. Identification of the specific ischemic stroke mechanism, eg, TIA or minor stroke ipsilateral to a moderate or severe internal carotid stenosis, guides decision making with regard to recurrent stroke prevention therapy (Table 2⇓). A patient with symptomatic cerebrovascular disease is likely to have other cardiovascular diseases or is predisposed to develop them. Preventive measures should complement reduction in risk of atherothrombotic events in the coronary arteries and other arterial territories. Certain nonmodifiable characteristics identify persons at high risk of stroke and stroke recurrence. These include advancing age, male sex, and black and Hispanic race-ethnic backgrounds. Some risk factors, however, such as elevated blood pressure, cigarette smoking, obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, and physical inactivity, are modifiable. Other conditions, ie, prior cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease with angina or prior myocardial infarction, valvular heart disease, congestive heart failure, atrial fibrillation, increased left ventricular mass, and certain other echocardiographic abnormalities, identify persons at increased risk who may be treated with antithrombotic therapy. More recently, other modifiable risk …