Long-Term Impact of Urgent Secondary Prevention After Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke: Ten-Year Follow-Up of the EXPRESS Study

But you didn't measure 100% recovery, so you're really NOT EVEN TRYING TO SOLVE STROKE. What the hell are you working in stroke for then?  And measuring cost!

With no measurements of 100% recovery they obviously have no intention of solving stroke at all.

Business 101: If you don't measure it, it is not important, so obviously 100% recovery is not important. 

“What's measured, improves.” So said management legend and author Peter F. Drucker 

The latest here:

Long-Term Impact of Urgent Secondary Prevention After Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke: Ten-Year Follow-Up of the EXPRESS Study

 

Ramon Luengo-Fernandez

,

Linxin Li

,

Louise Silver

,

Sergei Gutnikov

,

Nicola C. Beddows

,

Peter M. Rothwell

Originally published28 Oct 2021https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.121.034279Stroke. 2021;0:STROKEAHA.121.034279

Abstract

Background and Purpose:

Urgent assessment aimed at reducing stroke risk after transient ischemic attack or minor stroke is cost-effective over the short-term. However, it is unclear if the short-term impact is lost on long-term follow-up, with recurrent events being delayed rather than prevented. By 10-year follow-up of the EXPRESS study (Early Use of Existing Preventive Strategies for Stroke), previously showing urgent assessment reduced 90-day stroke risk by 80%, we determined whether that early benefit was still evident long-term for stroke risk, disability, and costs.

Methods:

EXPRESS was a prospective population-based before (phase 1: April 2002–September 2004; n=310) versus after (phase 2: October 2004–March 2007; n=281) study of the effect of early assessment and treatment of transient ischemic attack/minor stroke on early recurrent stroke risk, with an external control. This report assesses the effect on 10-year recurrent stroke risk, functional outcomes, quality-of-life, and costs.

Results:

A reduction in stroke risk in phase 2 was still evident at 10 years (55/23.3% versus 82/31.6%; hazard ratio=0.68 [95% CI, 0.48–0.95]; P=0.024), as was the impact on risk of disabling or fatal stroke (17/7.7% versus 32/13.1%; hazard ratio=0.54 [0.30–0.97]; P=0.036). These effects were due to maintenance of the early reduction in stroke risk, with neither additional benefit nor rebound catch-up after 90 days (post-90 days hazard ratio=0.88 [0.65–1.44], P=0.88; and hazard ratio=0.83 [0.42–1.65], P=0.59, respectively). Disability-free life expectancy was 0.59 (0.03–1.15; P=0.043) years higher in patients in phase 2, as was quality-adjusted life expectancy (0.49 [0.03–0.95]; P=0.036). Overall, 10-year costs were nonsignificantly higher in patients attending the phase 2 clinic ($1022 [-3865–5907]; P=0.66). The additional cost per quality-adjusted life year gained in phase 2 versus phase 1 was $2103, well below current cost-effectiveness thresholds.

Conclusions:

Urgent assessment and treatment of patients with transient ischemic attack or minor stroke resulted in a long-term reduction in recurrent strokes and improved outcomes, with little atrophy of the early benefit over time, representing good value for money even with a 10-year time horizon. Our results suggest that other effective acute treatments in transient ischemic attack/minor stroke in the short-term will also have the potential to have long-term benefit.

• Download figure
• Download PowerPoint