Migraine and risk of stroke: a national population-based twin study.

Numerous studies have indicated an increased risk for stroke in patients with migraine, especially migraine with aura; however, many studies used self-reported migraine and only a few controlled for familial factors. We aimed to investigate migraine as a risk factor for stroke in a Swedish population-based twin cohort, and whether familial factors contribute to an increased risk. The study population included twins without prior cerebrovascular disease who answered a headache questionnaire during 1998 and 2002 for twins born 1935-58 and during 2005-06 for twins born between 1959 and 1985. Migraine with and without aura and probable migraine was defined by an algorithm mapping on to clinical diagnostic criteria according to the International Classification of Headache Disorders. Stroke diagnoses were obtained from the national patient and cause of death registers. Twins were followed longitudinally, by linkage of national registers, from date of interview until date of first stroke, death, or end of study on 31 Dec 2014. In total, 8635 twins had any migraineous headache, whereof 3553 had migraine with aura and 5082 had non-aura migraineous headache (including migraine without aura and probable migraine), and 44 769 twins had no migraine. During a mean follow-up time of 11.9 years we observed 1297 incident cases of stroke. The Cox proportional hazards model with attained age as underlying time scale was used to estimate hazard ratios with 95% confidence intervals for stroke including ischaemic and haemorrhagic subtypes related to migraine with aura, non-aura migraineous headache, and any migraineous headache. Analyses were adjusted for gender and cardiovascular risk factors. Where appropriate; within-pair analyses were performed to control for confounding by familial factors. The age- and gender-adjusted hazard ratio for stroke related to migraine with aura was 1.27 (95% confidence interval 1.00-1.62), P = 0.05, and 1.07 (95% confidence interval 0.91-1.26), P = 0.39 related to any migraineous headache. Multivariable adjusted analyses showed similar results. When stratified by gender and attained age of ≤50 or >50 years, the estimated hazard ratio for stroke was higher in twins younger than 50 years and in females; however, non-significant. In the within-pair analysis, the hazard ratio for stroke related to migraine with aura was attenuated [hazard ratio 1.09 (95% confidence interval 0.81-1.46), P = 0.59]. In conclusion, we observed no increased stroke risk related to migraine overall but there was a modestly increased risk for stroke related to migraine with aura, and within-pair analyses suggested that familial factors might contribute to this association.

Impaired endothelial function in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale is not affected by closure.

INTRODUCTION: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is associated with cryptogenic stroke (CS) and migraine with aura (MA). Endothelial dysfunction (ED) is a risk factor for development of cardiovascular disease, but might also be involved in migraine pathophysiology. Short-term worsening of migraine has been described after closure of PFO. We evaluated endothelial function in patients with CS and PFO, before and after closure of PFO, and in patients with migraine, whether changes in endothelial function was related to a change in migraine frequency. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with CS and PFO were included; 20 with planned closure of PFO and seven controls on medical treatment only. Endothelial function was assessed by peripheral arterial tonometry (EndoPatR ) and biomarkers of endothelial activation. Patients were followed longitudinally at baseline, day 1, 1 month, and 6 months. A headache diary was used to assess migraine frequency. RESULT: Mean age of the cohort was 45.4 years, and migraine prevalence was 50% whereof 84.6% had MA. Median EndoPatR index (RHI) at baseline was 1.60 (IQR 1.41-2.00). There was no change in RHI over time, either in closure patients (P = 0.66), nor in controls (P = 0.31), and there was no change in biomarkers of endothelial activation. Three migraine patients experienced worsening of migraine frequency directly after closure. DISCUSSION: Endothelial function did not change after closure of PFO. Although patients were lacking cardiovascular risk factors, a high proportion had impaired endothelial function. Whether ED can have predictive value, identifying PFO at higher risk for recurrent stroke warrants further investigations.

Ischemic stroke and patent foramen ovale: risk factors and genetic profile.

BACKGROUND: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is considered to be a risk factor for ischemic cerebrovascular disease (ICVD), especially in young people. However, the potential pathophysiological relevance in ischemic stroke is controversial and in need of further investigation. In this study, we examined the conventional risk factors and the distribution of 100 polymorphisms in 47 suspected susceptibility genes for ICVD in stroke patients with or without a PFO. METHODS: In the South Stockholm Ischemic Stroke Study, 928 ICVD patients and 602 controls were genotyped for 100 different gene polymorphisms. The stroke patients also underwent relevant investigation and standardized blood tests. Patients who underwent transeosophageal echocardiography as part of their investigation were divided into groups that either had or did not have a PFO. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the 2 groups with regard to conventional risk factors or blood analyses. Three different polymorphisms located in the prothrombin, F2 (20210G/A), and apolipoprotein-C3 (-641A/C and -455T/A) genes were significantly associated with ICVD and PFO. The strongest association was found for F2 (P = .0049; odds ratio 26.4). CONCLUSIONS: We found that F2, which previously has been described as being a possible link between PFO and ICVD, was significantly associated with ICVD and PFO. There was also a trend toward an association between 2 other polymorphisms in the APO-CIII gene and PFO and ICVD.

SiPP (Stroke in Pregnancy and Postpartum): A prospective, observational, international, multicentre study on pathophysiological mechanisms, clinical profile, management and outcome of cerebrovascular diseases in pregnant and postpartum women.

RATIONALE: Cerebrovascular diseases associated with pregnancy and postpartum period are uncommon; however, they can have an important impact on health of both women and foetus or newborn. AIMS: To evaluate the frequency, characteristics and management of cerebrovascular events in pregnant/postpartum women, to clarify pathophysiological mechanisms underlying the occurrence of these events including biomolecular aspects, and to assess the short- and long-term cerebrovascular and global cardiovascular outcome of these patients, their predictors and infant outcome. METHODS AND DESIGN: This is an observational, prospective, multicentre, international case-control study. The study will include patients with cerebrovascular events during pregnancy and/or within six months after delivery. For each included case, two controls will be prospectively recruited: one pregnant or puerperal subject without any history of cerebrovascular event and one non-pregnant or non-puerperal subject with a recent cerebrovascular event. All controls will be matched by age, ethnicity and type of cerebrovascular event with their assigned cases. The pregnant controls will be matched also by pregnancy weeks/trimester. Follow-up will last 24 months for the mother and 12 months for the infant. SUMMARY: To better understand causes and outcomes of uncommon conditions like pregnancy/postpartum-related cerebrovascular events, the development of multisite, multidisciplinary registry-based studies, such as the Stroke in Pregnancy and Postpartum study, is needed in order to collect an adequate number of patients, draw reliable conclusions and give definite recommendations on their management.

Consensus statements and recommendations from the ESO-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference, Stockholm 11-13 November 2018.

The purpose of the European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Conference is to provide updates on recent stroke therapy research and to give an opportunity for the participants to discuss how these results may be implemented into clinical routine. The meeting started 22 years ago as Karolinska Stroke Update, but since 2014 it is a joint conference with European Stroke Organisation. Importantly, it provides a platform for discussion on the European Stroke Organisation guidelines process and on recommendations to the European Stroke Organisation guidelines committee on specific topics. By this, it adds a direct influence from stroke professionals otherwise not involved in committees and work groups on the guideline procedure. The discussions at the conference may also inspire new guidelines when motivated. The topics raised at the meeting are selected by the scientific programme committee mainly based on recent important scientific publications. This year's European Stroke Organisation-Karolinska Stroke Update Meeting was held in Stockholm on 11-13 November 2018. There were 11 scientific sessions discussed in the meeting including two short sessions. Each session except the short sessions produced a consensus statement (Full version with background, issues, conclusions and references are published as web-material and at www.eso-karolinska.org and http://eso-stroke.org) and recommendations which were prepared by a writing committee consisting of session chair(s), scientific secretary and speakers. These statements were presented to the 250 participants of the meeting. In the open meeting, general participants commented on the consensus statement and recommendations and the final document were adjusted based on the discussion from the general participants Recommendations (grade of evidence) were graded according to the 1998 Karolinska Stroke Update meeting with regard to the strength of evidence. Grade A Evidence: Strong support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (at least one randomised controlled trial plus one statistical review). Grade B Evidence: Support from randomised controlled trials and statistical reviews (one randomised controlled trial or one statistical review). Grade C Evidence: No reasonable support from randomised controlled trials, recommendations based on small randomised and/or non-randomised controlled trials evidence.