Transient ischaemic attacks clinics provide equivalent and more efficient care than early in-hospital assessment.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Clinics for early management of transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) have been developed in some stroke centres, resulting in reduced recurrence rates compared to appointment-based outpatient management, thus saving on hospitalization. We analysed the care process, recurrence rates and economic impact of the first year of work in our early-management TIA clinic and compared these with our previous in-hospital study protocols for low- and moderate-risk TIA patients. METHODS: This was a prospective evaluation of the management of low- to moderate-risk TIA patients, comparing a new TIA clinic model (2010) with a previous hospitalization model (2009). Demographic data, vascular risk factor profiles, diagnostic test performance, secondary prevention measures, final aetiological diagnoses and cerebrovascular recurrences at 7 and 90 days were compared between in-hospital and TIA clinic assessed patients. We also carried out an economic comparison of the costs of each model's process. RESULTS: Two hundred and eleven low- to moderate-risk TIA patients were included, of whom 40.8% were hospitalized. There were no differences between the TIA clinic assessed and in-hospital assessed patients in terms of risk factor diagnosis and secondary prevention measures. The stroke recurrence rate (2.4% vs. 1.2%; P = 0.65) was low and similar for both groups (CI 95%, 0.214-20.436; P = 0.52). Cost per patient was €393.28 for clinic versus €1931.18 for in-hospital management. Outpatient management resulted in a 77.8% reduction in hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Transient ischaemic attacks clinics are efficient for the early management of low- to moderate-risk TIA patients compared to in-hospital assessment, with no higher recurrence rates and at almost one-fifth the cost.

Bajo rendimiento del ecocardiograma, comparado con el Doppler transcraneal, en la detección de la comunicación derecha-izquierda / Low sensitivity of the echocardiograph compared with contrast transcranial doppler in right-to-left shunt

Introducción: El Doppler transcraneal con contraste (DTC-c) tiene una alta sensibilidad para la detección de comunicación derecha-izquierda (CDI), probablemente mayor que la del ecocardiograma transtorácico (ETT) y comparable con la del transesofágico (ETE). Objetivo: Evaluar la precisión del ecocardiograma (ETT y ETE) para detectar CDI, comparándolo con DTC-c. Material y métodos: Estudio observacional de pacientes <55 años con isquemia cerebral de origen indeterminado (2007-2009) a los que se les realizó una monitorización con DTC-c para detectar CDI, en reposo y tras maniobra de Valsalva (MV). El ETT y ETE se realizaron cuando estaba indicado según el protocolo de estudio cerebrovascular de nuestro centro. La precisión del ETT y ETE para detectar CDI fue calculada comparándolos con DTC-c. Resultados: Se incluyeron 115 pacientes a los que se les realizó monitorización con DTC-c. Edad media 43,3 (DE 10,3) años, 51,3% hombres. El ETT se realizó en 102 y el ETE en 81 pacientes. La detección de CDI fue mayor con DTC-c que con ETT (67,6 vs. 22,5%, p=0,001) o con ETE (77,8 vs. 53,1%, p=0,001). El ETT, comparado con DTC-c tras MV, mostró: sensibilidad 31,8%, especificidad 96,9%, valor predictivo positivo (VPP) 95,6%, valor predictivo negativo (VPN) 40,5% y precisión 52.9% para detectar CDI. El ETE, comparado con DTC-c tras MV, mostró: sensibilidad 63,4%, especificidad 83,3%, VPP 93%, VPN 39,4% y precisión 67,9%. La precisión del ETT y ETE se incrementó cuando se compararon con el DTC-c en reposo. Conclusiones: El ETT y ETE presentan un número elevado de falsos negativos para detección de CDI, cuando se comparan con el DTC-c. Los estudios clínicos deberían considerar al DTC-c como mejor técnica para diagnosticar CDI cuando se sospecha embolia paradójica (AU)

Background: Contrast transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) has a high sensitivity for detecting right-to-left shunt (RLS), and is probably higher than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and comparable with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE).Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of echocardiography (TTE and TEE) to detect RLS compared to c-TCD.Material and methods: Observational study of patients <55 years old with cerebral ischaemia of undetermined origin (2007-2009). All underwent c-TCD monitoring to detect RLS, at rest and after Valsalva manoeuvre (VM). The TTE and TEE were performed when indicated by our cerebrovascular protocol. The accuracy of TTE and TEE for detecting RLS was calculated by comparing them with c-TCD. Results: A total of 115 patients with c-TCD, mean age 43.3 (SD 10.3) years, 51.3% male. The TTE was performed in 102, and TEE in 81, patients. RLS detection was higher with c-TCD than with TTE (67.6% vs. 22.5%, P=.001) or TEE (77.8% vs. 53.1%, P=.001). The TTE, compared with c-TCD after MV showed: sensitivity 31.8%, specificity 96.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 95.6%, negative predictive value (NPV) 40.5% and accuracy 52.9% to detect RLS. TEE, compared with c-TCD after MV showed: sensitivity 63.4%, specificity 83.3%, PPV 93%, NPV 39.4% and accuracy 67.9%. The accuracy of TTE and TEE improved when they were compared with c-TCD at rest. Conclusions: TTE and TEE show a considerable number of false negatives for RLS detection. Clinical studies should consider the c-TCD as the best technique to diagnose RLS when a paradoxical embolism is suspected (AU)

[Low sensitivity of the echocardiograph compared with contrast transcranial Doppler in right-to-left shunt]. / Bajo rendimiento del ecocardiograma, comparado con el Doppler transcraneal, en la detección de la comunicación derecha-izquierda.

BACKGROUND: Contrast transcranial Doppler (c-TCD) has a high sensitivity for detecting right-to-left shunt (RLS), and is probably higher than transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and comparable with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of echocardiography (TTE and TEE) to detect RLS compared to c-TCD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational study of patients <55 years old with cerebral ischaemia of undetermined origin (2007-2009). All underwent c-TCD monitoring to detect RLS, at rest and after Valsalva manoeuvre (VM). The TTE and TEE were performed when indicated by our cerebrovascular protocol. The accuracy of TTE and TEE for detecting RLS was calculated by comparing them with c-TCD. RESULTS: A total of 115 patients with c-TCD, mean age 43.3 (SD 10.3) years, 51.3% male. The TTE was performed in 102, and TEE in 81, patients. RLS detection was higher with c-TCD than with TTE (67.6% vs. 22.5%, P=.001) or TEE (77.8% vs. 53.1%, P=.001). The TTE, compared with c-TCD after MV showed: sensitivity 31.8%, specificity 96.9%, positive predictive value (PPV) 95.6%, negative predictive value (NPV) 40.5% and accuracy 52.9% to detect RLS. TEE, compared with c-TCD after MV showed: sensitivity 63.4%, specificity 83.3%, PPV 93%, NPV 39.4% and accuracy 67.9%. The accuracy of TTE and TEE improved when they were compared with c-TCD at rest. CONCLUSIONS: TTE and TEE show a considerable number of false negatives for RLS detection. Clinical studies should consider the c-TCD as the best technique to diagnose RLS when a paradoxical embolism is suspected.

[The organization of health care for stroke. The stroke units make the difference]. / Organización asistencial en el cuidado agudo de ictus. Las unidades de ictus marcan la diferencia.

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of care in stroke units (UI) are known, as are those of being in neurology wards as compared with the general medical wards, although to date there are no studies which make a comparative evaluation of the stroke team (EI) as compared with the UI with regard to benefits in care obtained by the patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We made a sequential analysis from the stroke register comparing three groups of patients attended during the years 1994-1996. During 1994 the patients were attended in the neurology ward by the EI. In 1995 an acute UI was set up. The criteria for inclusion or exclusion, health staff and technical resources were similar. We analysed the average stay, complications, mortality, hospital costs, functional state and destination on discharge. RESULTS: We included 1,491 patients: 435 (1994), 529 (1995) and 527 (1996). Comparing UI with EI we observed a reduced average stay (29.5%; p<0.001), fewer complications (47.8%; p<0.001), better functional state on discharge (Rankin 1 +/- 2 against 2 +/- 2; p<0.0001), increased transference to rehabilitation units (78%; p<0.001) with less long-term hospitalisation (22%; VS) and a reduction in costs ( up to 14.2%). There was no difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The UI is a better system of attendance than EI for the management of strokes, since it reduces the average stay, hospital complications and health costs, as well as permitting a better functional state on discharge. Therefore treatment in the UI makes the difference in prognosis for these patients and the institutional expenses.