Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain! trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 523 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

My blog is not to help survivors recover, it is to have the 10 million yearly stroke survivors light fires underneath their doctors, stroke hospitals and stroke researchers to get stroke solved. 100% recovery. The stroke medical world is completely failing at that goal, they don't even have it as a goal. Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It lays out what needs to be done to get stroke survivors closer to 100% recovery. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.

Showing posts with label Cryptogenic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cryptogenic. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2020

Cryptogenic Stroke or Stroke of "Unknown Cause"

My doctors determined mine was caused by a clot. They told me it was caused by the dissection of my right carotid artery, which seems incredible since they never told me it was 80% blocked and did absolutely nothing to prevent further problems from that. Lucky that in the three years it took to completely close up it didn't dissect again and throw another clot into my brain. Complete and total fucking incompetence in obvious view there.

Cryptogenic Stroke or Stroke of "Unknown Cause"

In most cases, a stroke is caused by a blood clot that blocks blood flow to the brain. But in some instances, despite testing, the cause can’t be determined. Strokes without a known cause are called “cryptogenic”.
Because approximately 1 in 4 stroke survivors will likely have another stroke event, finding the cause of the stroke will help your physician treat the cause of your stroke and lower the likelihood of another event. Having a cryptogenic stroke may be frustrating and overwhelming, but with a proper diagnostic work-up and collaboration with your healthcare team, you can take part in finding the cause of your stroke and help prevent another one from occurring.
Below, we have information and resources that can help you and your loved ones partner with your healthcare team and find answers around cryptogenic stroke.

Saturday, July 18, 2020

It's Time to Say Goodbye to the ESUS Construct on cryptogenic strokes

Instead of being able to blithely state you had a cryptogenic stroke your doctor now has to do a complete vascular workup. It has only been out for 6 years, does your doctor and stroke hospital know about this?  Or is incompetence showing its ugly head once again? 

As a programmer I was never allowed to say the reason for an abend(abnormal end) was not able to be found. I would have been fired in no time. I once spent 4 months finding a problem.  Your doctor should be held to the same standards.  It is a life and death issue for us, your doctor should be treating it with that amount of seriousness.

Embolic strokes of undetermined source: theoretical construct or useful clinical tool? back to 2014

The latest here:

It's Time to Say Goodbye to the ESUS Construct on cryptogenic strokes

  • 1Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain
  • 2Department of Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Cryptogenic stroke has been a challenge for years in clinical practice, given it can represent up to 40% of strokes, depending on the etiological classification used, which has different operative definitions for those patients in whom the complete diagnostic workup does not reveal a specific stroke etiology. In 2014, two opposing approaches to the challenge of cryptogenic stroke were proposed. On the one hand, Bang et al. proposed its assessment using advanced diagnostic techniques (such as advanced vascular imaging and cardiac monitoring, aortogenic, and paradoxical embolic source assessment, coagulopathy, and cancer screening tests) as a measure to reduce the proportion of cryptogenic strokes by increasing the diagnosis of atheroembolic disease, aortic embolic disease, branch occlusive disease, paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, paradoxical embolism, and cancer-related coagulopathy (1). On the other hand, the Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group proposed a new clinical construct that they named embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) (2). The rationale behind the ESUS concept was the assumption that most cryptogenic strokes were thromboembolic and could benefit from non-vitamin K agonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) that had already demonstrated their efficacy and safety in atrial fibrillation (AF), to reduce recurrent brain ischemia. This suggestion prompted the development of randomized clinical trials testing the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban and dabigatran in patients with ESUS as well as the rapid dissemination of the ESUS concept to clinical practice due to the simplicity of the diagnostic workup, which required only the demonstration by neuroimaging procedures [computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)] of a non-lacunar infarction, the absence of extracranial or intracranial atherosclerosis causing ≥50% luminal stenosis in arteries supplying the ischemic area, no major-risk cardioembolic source of embolism and no other cause of stroke identified. The only diagnostic procedure assessments required were brain CT or MRI, 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), precordial echocardiography, cardiac monitoring for ≥24 h with automated rhythm detection and imaging of extracranial and intracranial arteries by either ultrasonography or MRI, CT, or catheter angiography.
However, the failure of the RESPECT-ESUS and NAVIGATE-ESUS trials (3, 4) in demonstrating any efficacy in the prevention of stroke recurrences in patients with ESUS has called into question the practical usefulness of this concept as, compared with the concept of cryptogenic stroke, the only difference is the exclusion of lacunar stroke (59). Therefore, ESUS remains a non-diagnosis similar to the classic cryptogenic stroke concept. Some of the most commonly used stroke classifications, such as the TOAST (10) and the ESUS criteria themselves (2), were developed for use in clinical trials; however, they have been incorporated in clinical practice without enough validation studies to truly evaluate their usefulness in clinical settings. Stroke physicians attend stroke patients daily in whom there is no clear evidence of the underlying etiology and must choose between two options. One is to make the diagnosis of ESUS (which is not actually associated with any specific therapeutic change), and the other is to make a greater effort to identify the ultimate cause of the stroke by the use of advanced diagnostic techniques (1). Choosing one or the other option is crucial for secondary stroke prevention, given the treatments can be different.
In this opinion article, we would like to highlight some of the arguments against the use of the ESUS concept in clinical practice:
• The rationale behind the ESUS concept, considering that many ESUSs would be due to covert paroxysmal AF, and therefore would benefit from the use of NOAC, has clearly failed, not only because of the neutral/negative results of the RESPECT-ESUS and NAVIGATE-ESUS trials (3, 4), but also because clinical trials with long-term ECG monitoring as well as observational studies have shown that covert AF represents only about 30% of ESUS (1113).
This low rate of AF detection during follow-up, the different phenotypes between patients with ESUS and patients with stroke with AF, and data from studies with implantable cardiac monitoring devices showing that the majority of embolic events do not occur proximal to episodes of AF have raised doubts regarding the causal association between covert AF and ESUS (14).
• The authors of the ESUS construct acknowledged that arteriogenic embolism due to non-stenotic plaques was possible in some patients with ESUS (2). However, grouping them into the same category as patients with other minor cardioembolic strokes, assuming that they would also benefit from anticoagulants, risks neglecting the atherothrombotic origin in patients with stroke with carotid atherosclerosis with stenosis lower than 50% or with aortic arch atheroma (AAA); these etiologies require a more tailored approach to atherosclerosis to prevent not only stroke recurrences, but also other vascular events such as myocardial infarction.
Several studies have reported a higher prevalence of ipsilateral carotid plaques than contralateral carotid plaques in some ESUS cohorts (15, 16), and the global prevalence of carotid non-stenotic plaques in the ESUS Global Registry is as high as 79% (17). Recently published data from the NAVIGATE trial have shown that up to 40% of the patients included in that trial had carotid plaques, this being clearly more frequent on the ipsilateral side to the qualifying stroke. Interestingly, the group of patients with carotid plaques showed a strong tendency to higher frequency of stroke recurrences compared with those without carotid plaques (18).
Similarly, AAA is a frequent finding in patients with ESUS (when screened), found in up to 28% in the ESUS Global registry (17) and in the 29% of patients who had transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) included in the NAVIGATE trial, and they showed a higher frequency of multiterritorial infarcts in neuroimaging (19). Therefore, for cases in which the stroke physician follows the ESUS criteria, which does not require TEE, many symptomatic AAA cases might be missed. Although clinical trials on the use of antithrombotic drugs in stroke prevention in AAA were inconclusive because of insufficient power calculation (1921), these patients carry a higher risk of stroke recurrences than patients with other possible causes of cryptogenic stroke (20) and have a high burden of vascular risk factors and of coronary artery disease (1921). Therefore, they should be instructed to strictly adhere to lifestyle modifications and risk factor interventions to reduce the overall vascular risk, instead of providing them with the uncertainty of an ESUS diagnosis.
• Patent foramen ovale (PFO) has also been included in the broad concept of ESUS (2), following the historical controversy on its pathogenic role in ischemic stroke. It has been reported to be present in up to 7.4% of patients with ESUS recruited in the NAVIGATE trial (22) and in 12.6% in the RESPECT-ESUS trial (3); however, actual rates could be underestimated, given TEE, or bubble transcranial Doppler were not required prior to inclusion in the trials. None of them showed NOAC to have any significant effect on reducing stroke recurrences. Moreover, given percutaneous PFO closure has been demonstrated to be safe and efficacious in the prevention of stroke recurrences in those patients with ischemic stroke related to large PFOs (especially when associated with atrial septal aneurysm) and no other cause of stroke (23, 24), they should be excluded from the ESUS category because the therapeutic approach is clearly different. Indeed, an update of current nomenclature and classifications systems has recently been proposed to include the specific category of PFO-associated stroke (25).
• Cancer-associated stroke is another possible underlying etiology in patients with ESUS (2) and data from the NAVIGATE trial reported a cancer diagnosis in up to 7.5% of the included patients. This value is probably an underestimate, given an exclusion criterion was a life expectancy of <6 months. A new cancer diagnosis at 11 months' follow-up was found in 1.7% (26). Patients with cancer had a higher risk of stroke recurrences than patients without cancer, without differences in ischemic stroke recurrences between the aspirin and rivaroxaban groups, although with a trend toward more major bleeds with rivaroxaban (26). Involved pathogenic mechanisms are non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis, tumor emboli from occult cancer and a cancer-associated hypercoagulable state. Cancer-associated stroke has a very poor prognosis, with high mortality at follow-up (27, 28). Identifying and treating the underlying cancer is crucial in these patients. For this reason, following such a basic diagnostic approach as required for ESUS appears to be inappropriate for the detection of stroke-associated cancer and, in our opinion, further laboratory tests (such as D-dimer, which has been proposed as a helpful parameter for suspected covert cancer in stroke patients) (29) and cardiac examinations (such as TEE to rule out non-bacterial thrombotic endocarditis) should be performed.
• Finally, there are some other less recognized cardioembolic sources of stroke, such as atrial cardiopathy and left ventricular disease, including hypertrophy, decreased ejection fraction and valvular heart disease without AF, which merit identification in patients with stroke. The results of the ongoing ATTICUS and ARCADIA trials (30, 31) that are investigating the efficacy and safety of apixaban in patients with disease of unknown etiology and atrial cardiopathy or at least one risk factor suggestive of cardiac embolism should provide us with new insights into the role of atrial cardiopathy and the risk of stroke, whether mediated or not by covert AF. These trials are selecting cryptogenic stroke patients who present the following markers suggestive of atrial cardiopathy: left atrium enlargement >45 mm, spontaneous echo contrast in left atrial appendage (LAA), LAA flow velocity ≤ 0.2 m/sg, atrial high rate episodes, PFO and high CHADS2-VASc score (≥4) in the ATTICUS Trial; and the P-wave terminal force > 5,000 μV x ms in ECG lead V1, serum N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-ProBNP) >250 pg/ml, and left atrial diameter index ≥3 cm/m2 in the ARCADIA Trial (30, 31).
Therefore, in our opinion, the exclusion of ipsilateral non-stenotic carotid plaques, aortic arch atherosclerosis, PFO, and cancer-associated strokes should be a prerequisite before diagnosing a cryptogenic stroke in clinical practice (Figure 1), and patients with factors that have been identified as being associated with a higher risk of covert AF should undergo long-term cardiac monitoring. In this sense, the evaluation of serum (Nt-ProBNP) could help in the selection of patients for long-term cardiac monitoring since levels ≥505 pg/ml have recently shown to have a 86% sensitivity and 98% negative predictive value for AF in cryptogenic stroke (32).
FIGURE 1
www.frontiersin.org Figure 1. A proposal for stroke of unknown etiology, cryptogenic stroke classification and diagnostic approach. CT, Computed Tomography; DVT, Deep Venous Thrombosis; ECG, Electrocardiogram; MRI, Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PET/CT, Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography; TCD, Transcranial Doppler; TEE, Transesophageal Echocardiography.
In conclusion, our advice to stroke physicians is to forget ESUS and be smart in the search for underlying causes of ischemic stroke, optimizing advanced diagnostic procedures according to the patient's and stroke's characteristics, attempting to find the correct diagnosis for stroke patients and reducing rates of cryptogenic stroke diagnosis.

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

Stroke of undetermined source most commonly followed by another embolic stroke

If this is you, you are pretty much on your own since researchers seem to have given up.

Stroke of undetermined source most commonly followed by another embolic stroke

After an initial embolic stroke of undetermined source, or ESUS, the most prevalent recurrent infarct was another ESUS, according to an analysis of the NAVIGATE-ESUS trial.
Researchers also noted that atrial fibrillation was strongly associated with morbidity and mortality among patients with recurrent ischemic stroke.

Source: Adobe Stock.
“The predominance of embolic features in most of the recurrent strokes after ESUS found in our analysis supports the validity of the ESUS construct in terms of embolism as the pathogenic mechanism,” Roland Veltkamp, MD, of the department of neurology at Alfried Krupp Krankenhaus, Germany, and colleagues wrote. “However, even with the additional knowledge of recurrent stroke subtype in the present analysis, it is not possible to identify patient characteristics that are associated with the mechanism of recurrence at the time of the qualifying ESUS.”
The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial was a randomized controlled trial that assessed the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Janssen) compared with aspirin in patients with recent ESUS.
For this secondary analysis, published in JAMA Neurology, investigators assessed the data of patients who experienced ischemic stroke during the median 11-month follow-up after initial ESUS (n = 309; 66% men; mean age, 68 years).
Of the classifiable cases of ischemic strokes, researchers determined that 58% were ESUS and the other 42% were identified as cardioembolic (32%), atherosclerotic (23%), lacunar (31%) or other determined cause (14%). The risk for stroke recurrence did not differ by subtype between patients who received rivaroxaban or aspirin, according to the study.
Although AF was identified in 9% of cohort, it was associated with greater morbidity (median change in modified Rankin Scale score, 2 vs. 0) and mortality (15% vs 1%) compared with other causes.
“Although covert atrial fibrillation may not underlie most recurrent strokes after ESUS, its particularly grave consequences warrant a more extensive search for atrial fibrillation in patients with ESUS than mandated in the originally proposed criteria for ESUS,” the researchers wrote.
In other findings, for both the index and recurrent strokes, location of infarct was more often in the left hemisphere (46% index; 54% recurrent) compared with the right hemisphere (40% index; 37% recurrent) or brain stem or cerebellum (14% index; 9% recurrent).
“The persisting uncertainty regarding the embolic source after stroke recurrence in a large proportion of our patients with ESUS suggests that the search for an underlying source may remain futile in many cases with ESUS, given the limitations of widely used diagnostic testing at present,” the researchers wrote. “Consequently, addressing a specific embolic source by targeted antithrombotic stroke prevention remains an unresolved dilemma for many patients with ESUS.”

Monday, May 27, 2019

Embolic strokes of undetermined source: theoretical construct or useful clinical tool?

Instead of being able to blithely state you had a cryptogenic stroke your doctor now has to do a complete vascular workup. It has only been out for 5 years, does your doctor and stroke hospital know about this?  Or is incompetence showing its ugly head once again?

Do you prefer your doctor, hospital and board of director's incompetence NOT KNOWING? OR NOT DOING?

Embolic strokes of undetermined source: theoretical construct or useful clinical tool?

First Published May 24, 2019 Review Article



In 2014, the definition of embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS) emerged as a new clinical construct to characterize cryptogenic stroke (CS) patients with complete vascular workup to determine nonlacunar, nonatherosclerotic strokes of presumable embolic origin. NAVIGATE ESUS, the first phase III randomized-controlled, clinical trial (RCT) comparing rivaroxaban (15 mg daily) with aspirin (100 mg daily), was prematurely terminated for lack of efficacy after enrollment of 7213 patients. Except for the lack of efficacy in the primary outcome, rivaroxaban was associated with increased risk of major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke compared with aspirin. RE-SPECT ESUS was the second phase III RCT that compared the efficacy and safety of dabigatran (110 or 150 mg, twice daily) to aspirin (100 mg daily). The results of this trial have been recently presented and showed similar efficacy and safety outcomes between dabigatran and aspirin. Indirect analyses of these trials suggest similar efficacy on the risk of ischemic stroke (IS) prevention, but higher intracranial hemorrhage risk in ESUS patients receiving rivaroxaban compared to those receiving dabigatran (indirect HR = 6.63, 95% CI: 1.38–31.76). ESUS constitute a heterogeneous group of patients with embolic cerebral infarction. Occult AF represents the underlying mechanism of cerebral ischemia in the minority of ESUS patients. Other embolic mechanisms (paradoxical embolism via patent foramen ovale, aortic plaque, nonstenosing unstable carotid plaque, etc.) may represent alternative mechanisms of cerebral embolism in ESUS, and may mandate different management than oral anticoagulation. The potential clinical utility of ESUS may be challenged since the concept failed to identify patients who would benefit from anticoagulation therapy. Compared with the former diagnosis of CS, ESUS patients required thorough investigations; more comprehensive diagnostic work-up than is requested in current ESUS diagnostic criteria may assist clinicians in uncovering the source of brain embolism in CS patients and individualize treatment approaches.

Even though no etiopathogenic mechanism can be identified in more than one-third of all ischemic strokes (IS), the definition of cryptogenic cerebral ischemia still remains very vague, given that the characterization of a cerebral ischemic event as cryptogenic depends largely on the diagnostic investigations performed, the quality of these exams, and the subjective assessment of the treating physician.1,2 The most frequently used definition of cryptogenic stroke (CS) to date is based on the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) criteria, which were first published in 1993.3 TOAST criteria classify an IS as cryptogenic when no cause can be identified after baseline diagnostic work-up. However, IS with incomplete work-up or cerebral infarctions with two or more possible underlying causes are also characterized as cryptogenic. The lack of specified mandatory diagnostic testing and work-up algorithm imple-mentation of TOAST criteria results in huge variations in the reported prevalence of CS across hospital registries, as a consequence of poor agreement between physicians to classify a cerebral ischemic event as cryptogenic.4,5
In 2007, the Causative Classification of Stroke system proposed to subdivide strokes of undetermined cause further into cryptogenic embolism, other cryptogenic, incomplete evaluation, and unclassified groups.6 In 2014, the definition of embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS) emerged as a new clinical construct to characterize nonlacunar (>1.5 cm on CT or >2 cm on MRI), nonatherosclerotic (absence of significant ipsilateral vessel stenosis ⩾50%) strokes of an undetermined embolic source, in the absence of a high-risk for embolism cardiac disease or any other specific cause.4 ESUS working group investigators further proposed that the minimal stroke work-up should include brain neuroimaging with CT or MRI, 12-lead ECG, transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), 24 h Holter-ECG and imaging of both extracranial and intracranial vessels with any available imaging modality (DSA, MRA, CTA, or US). Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and long-term ECG monitoring were not included as mandatory investigations in the diagnostic work-up of ESUS patients. Approximately 9–25% of IS patients fulfil ESUS diagnostic criteria with any variance attributed to the characteristics of the patient population.7,8

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Another NOAC Flops for Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke Head-to-head trial with aspirin yielded no fewer recurrent strokes


So why is your doctor prescribing something that costs hundreds of dollars instead of cheap aspirin?

Another NOAC Flops for Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke - Head-to-head trial with aspirin yielded no fewer recurrent strokes

  • by Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
Dabigatran (Pradaxa) was no better than aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in non-lacunar cryptogenic strokes, the RE-SPECT ESUS trial showed.
Recurrent stroke rates came out similar for patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source randomized to the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) as for those on placebo (4.1% vs 4.8% per year, HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69-1.03).
The same was observed for ischemic strokes (4.0% vs 4.7% per year, HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68-1.03), reported researchers led by Hans-Christoph Diener, MD, PhD, of University Hospital Essen in Germany.
Whereas major bleeding was similarly likely between groups (1.7% vs 1.4% per year, HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.85-1.66), there were more clinically-relevant non-major bleeds with dabigatran (1.6% vs 0.9% per year, HR 1.73, 95% CI 1.17-2.54).
Data from the trial's 19-month follow-up were published in the May 16 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Preliminary report of the results came out at the World Stroke Congress in 2018.
"Post hoc analysis suggested that dabigatran may have had an effect on stroke recurrence after 1 year, but no inferences can be made because of the post hoc nature of the analysis. A possible explanation for this temporal pattern might be a progressive increase in the occurrence of asymptomatic, undetected atrial fibrillation [Afib] and other cardiac sources of embolism over time," Diener and colleagues noted.
Another NOAC, rivaroxaban (Xarelto), was also shown to be no better than aspirin in preventing recurrent strokes in a similar population in NAVIGATE ESUS.
The 5,390 adults randomized in RE-SPECT ESUS received either dabigatran (150 mg or 110 mg twice daily depending on age and kidney function) or aspirin (100 mg once daily).
Study participants had had non-lacunar ischemic strokes -- with less than 50% stenosis in arteries supplying the territory, as well as no Afib lasting more than 6 minutes or any other identifiable source of emboli -- in the 3 to 6 months prior to enrollment.
Mean age was 64.2 years, and 36.9% of the cohort were women.
Trial investigators reported similar baseline characteristics between groups, except the dabigatran group was 0.6 years older on average.
"In our trial, extended ECG monitoring after randomization was performed in only 14% of patients; therefore, we do not have a systematic assessment of the occurrence of atrial fibrillation," Diener's group acknowledged.
That said, the strengths of RE-SPECT ESUS included its large sample size and sufficient stroke events to match expectations from the power calculation for the trial, according to the investigators.
The study was supported by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Diener reported receiving honoraria from Abbott, Allergan, Bayer Vital, Bristol-Myers Squibb, BrainsGate, CoAxia, Corimmun, Covidien, Daiichi Sankyo, D-Pharm, EV3, Fresenius, Knoll, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Lilly, Medtronic, Mind-Frame, Neurobiological Technologies, Novo Nordisk, Paion, Parke-Davis, Pfizer, Schering-Plough, Servier, Solvay, ThromboGenics, and Wyeth; grant support and honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, and Sanofi Aventis; and grant support from Lundbeck, Synagis, and Talecris.
last updated


Saturday, May 26, 2018

Uncovering the Mystery of Cryptogenic Strokes to Improve Outcomes

As a programmer I was never allowed to say the reason for an abend(abnormal end) was not able to be found. I would have been fired in no time. I once spent 4 months finding a problem.  Your doctor should be held to the same standards.  It is a life and death issue for us, your doctor should be treating it with that amount of seriousness. Have your doctor contact this person and solve the damn issue. Consequences for not finding the reason should be severe.
http://www.futureofpersonalhealth.com/prevention-and-treatment/uncovering-the-mystery-of-cryptogenic-strokes-to-improve-outcomes


Prevention & Treatment For purposes of more effective treatment and prevention, it’s critical to understand the implications and possible causes of a cryptogenic stroke.


Maryann Bauman, M.D.
Chair, Cryptogenic Stroke Oversight Committee, American Stroke Association




Photo: Brandon Wong
Stroke is the fifth-leading cause of death for Americans and a leading cause of long-term, severe disability. Your risk for stroke goes up based on several factors: smoking, high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, unhealthy eating habits, being overweight and lack of exercise.

Understanding the cryptogenic classification

There are two types of strokes: ischemic and hemorrhagic. An ischemic stroke occurs when there is a blockage within a blood vessel supplying blood to the brain. A hemorrhagic stroke happens when a weakened blood vessel breaks, causing bleeding in the brain. Ischemic strokes are far more common. In fact, 87 percent of strokes are ischemic.
Patients and family members should suggest that their doctors work together to find the cause of a stroke that is labeled cryptogenic.
While doctors usually look for a cause of each stroke, the reason for the blockage is unclear in about 200,000 of the nearly 690,000 ischemic strokes that happen every year. When the cause is not found before the patient is discharged from the hospital, the stroke is classified as cryptogenic.
Such strokes are concerning because if we don’t know why the stroke occurred, we don’t know how to best treat it to decrease the chance of another one. The possibility of a second stroke is very troubling because a second stroke usually is more severe than the first. And 25 percent of strokes happen to people who have had a previous one. That’s one in four.

Considering the potential causes

Patients and family members should suggest that their doctors work together to find the cause of a stroke that is labeled cryptogenic and ensure that extensive testing is done. Some of the causes to consider include:
Atrial fibrillation (also known as AF or AFib). This is a specific type of irregular heartbeat. AFib is a major stroke risk factor that can be difficult to find but may be detected by monitoring the heart’s rhythm over time. There are several types of heart monitors, including the holter monitor, mobile continuous outpatient telemetry and implantable cardiac monitor.
Patent foramen ovale. This is a hole between the heart’s chambers that is normal in an unborn baby and usually closes naturally by early childhood. In some people, the hole fails to close. A blood clot could pass through the hole and travel to the brain, causing a stroke.
Large artery atherosclerosis. This is the term for plaques clogging large blood vessels that can rupture, causing clots that can block arteries in the brain.
It is important for health care providers to work together with patients and their families to help unveil the stroke mystery. When cardiologists, neurologists, primary care physicians and other health care professionals work together, it ensures that patients receive the most thorough care to help prevent another stroke.
Stroke Awareness
MaryAnn Bauman, MD, Chair, Cryptogenic Stroke Oversight Committee, American Stroke Association
, editorial@mediaplanet.com

Saturday, January 27, 2018

Impact of D-dimer levels for short-term or long-term outcomes in cryptogenic stroke patients

I see nothing here that suggests that they have done anything to find out what might reduce these levels and what good that might do.
https://www.mdlinx.com/internal-medicine/medical-news-article/2018/01/26/d-dimer-levels-cryptogenic-stroke-patients/7501504/?
Journal of Neurology | January 26, 2018

Nezu T, et al. - The present study was planned to investigate the associations between plasma D-dimer levels at admission, clinical characteristics and mortality at discharge in cryptogenic stroke patients. In addition, researchers assessed if D-dimer levels could predict long-term outcomes in those patients, including those with and without right-to-left shunt (RLS). In cryptogenic stroke patients, an association of increased D-dimer levels at admission with mortality at discharge was observed. High D-dimer levels were also found to have a correlation with long-term outcomes in cryptogenic stroke patients with RLS.

Methods

  • Researchers consecutively enrolled and retrospectively analyzed acute cryptogenic stroke patients (n = 295, 72 ± 13 years old).
  • The cryptogenic stroke was defined as an undetermined etiology according to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment criteria.
  • Evaluation of plasma D-dimer levels at admission was performed.
  • Using saline contrast-transcranial Doppler ultrasonography or contrast-transesophageal echography, they performed assessments for RLS.
  • Follow-up for up to 3 years after stroke onset was performed of the survivors (at discharge).

Results

  • Seventeen patients of the total enrolled cohort died at discharge.
  • With initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, D-dimer levels were correlated (r = 0.391, P < 0.001); these levels were associated with mortality at discharge [odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00–1.08, P = 0.049] after adjusting for age, sex and initial NIHSS score.
  • Researchers evaluated 266 patients to assess RLS during hospitalization among the 278 survivors at discharge; 62 patients (23.3%) exhibited RLS.
  • The patients were divided into a low D-dimer group (n = 136, < median) and a high D-dimer group (n = 130, ≥ median) in accordance to the median plasma D-dimer levels at admission (0.7 μg/ml).
  • Compared to the patients in the low D-dimer group, patients in the high D-dimer group were older, more frequently female, had a lower BMI, had a higher prevalence of cancer and had greater initial neurological severity.
  • Recurrent stroke developed in 31 patients and death of 33 patients was reported during the follow-up period (median, 1,093 days).
  • An independent association of high D-dimer levels at admission was observed with recurrent stroke and all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 3.76; 95% CI 1.21–14.1, P = 0.021) in patients with RLS, but not in those without RLS (HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.74–2.50, P = 0.335).

Read the full article on Journal of Neurology

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

PFO Closure for Cryptogenic Stroke Prevents Recurrences

This was a long time coming.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/65348?

First overall stroke reduction with closure reported in two trials

  • by
    Senior Associate Editor, MedPage Today
Endovascular device closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) reduced overall stroke risk for patients with a prior cryptogenic stroke, the CLOSE and REDUCE trials found.
The two trials reported at the European Stroke Organisation Conference (ESOC) in Prague are the first to find overall stroke reduction with the procedure.
Earlier results from the RESPECT trial gained FDA approval for the Amplatzer PFO Occluder based on a reduction in PFO-related second strokes without any effect on overall stroke risk, as was the case in the PC Trial with the device.
In the three-arm open-label CLOSE trial, which randomized 663 of a planned 900 patients to PFO closure with various investigational devices or to antiplatelet treatment or antithrombotic therapy, the hazard ratio for fatal or nonfatal stroke was 0.03 with closure versus antiplatelet therapy alone (95% CI 0-0.25, P<0.001; 0 versus 14 strokes over mean 5.3 years). The two medical arms didn't differ.
In the open-label REDUCE trial, randomizing 664 patients 2:1 to PFO closure with the Helex Septal Occluder or Cardioform Septal Occluder plus antiplatelet therapy versus antiplatelet therapy alone, the device intervention reduced recurrent clinically-apparent stroke (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.09-0.62, P=0.001) and new brain infarction on MRI (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29-0.91, P=0.024).
Both trials showed an increase in largely periprocedural atrial fibrillation, as in prior trials.
"These data will change clinical practice in patients with cryptogenic stroke with atrial septal aneurysm or a large shunt," Jean-Louis Mas, MD, PhD, of Hôpital Sainte-Anne in Paris, said in a release from ESOC. "I also believe the question of whether or not to close a PFO in this subset of patients has been answered by these data – the answer is yes."
Heinrich Mattle, MD, of Bern University Hospital in Switzerland, agreed, saying "this will change secondary prevention in cryptogenic stroke," in his interview with Mas released by the conference organizers.
The REDUCE trial "looks impressive on the surface," commented Sanjay Kaul, MD, MPH, of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. The "5.6% absolute difference in silent brain infarct is pretty good; 76% relative difference in recurrent stroke also looks good, the latter has a more robust P value!"
"To what extent is the large treatment effect driven by the choice of the control (antiplatelet therapy) remains an open question. The 2016 AAN practice advisory leaned towards favoring antiplatelet over anticoagulant therapy for this scenario (level C recommendation). There is no randomized, controlled trial evidence conclusively supporting anticoagulant over antiplatelet therapy. So, if the data pass muster, they could be potentially practice changing!" Kaul said.
An effect that large is unlikely to be by chance, he suggested, but why these new trial results differ from RESPECT's wasn't clear given broadly similar inclusion criteria.
RESPECT included patients ages 18 to 60 who had a cryptogenic stroke but also had a PFO that could have been responsible for their index stroke.
CLOSE included patients ages 16 to 60 with cryptogenic stroke and PFO with atrial septal aneurysm or PFO with large shunt.
REDUCE included "highly selected" patients ages 18 to 60 with cryptogenic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack of presumed embolic infarction verified by a neurologist and PFO seen on positive bubble study with transesophageal echocardiography. No difference appeared in effect between patients with small versus large shunts.
While the prior trials were negative for overall stroke reduction "there were clues" in two of them -- trends that "just missed statistical significance," Mas noted in the ESOC interview.
Gore announced that it plans to submit the REDUCE data to the FDA later this year to seek a PFO indication for its Cardioform Septal Occluder.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

MGH scientists develop software that provides automated support for diagnosing cause of stroke

It doesn't talk about crytogenic strokes only those already identified as ischemic. so this doesn't seem that useful.
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20170329/MGH-scientists-develop-software-that-provides-automated-support-for-diagnosing-cause-of-stroke.aspx
Determining the cause of an ischemic stroke - one caused by an interruption of blood supply - is critical to preventing a second stroke and is a primary focus in the evaluation of stroke patients. But despite that importance, physicians have long lacked a robust and objective means of doing so. Now a team of investigators at the Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the MGH Stroke Service have developed a software package that provides evidence-based, automated support for diagnosing the cause of stroke. Their study validating the package - called Causative Classification of Stroke (CCS) - was published online in JAMA Neurology.
"This was a much-needed study because, although stroke classifications systems are often used in research and clinical practice, these systems are not always able to produce subtypes with discrete pathophysiological, diagnostic and prognostic characteristics," says Hakan Ay, MD, a vascular neurologist, Martinos Center investigator and senior author of the JAMA Neurology paper. "We found that the CCS-based classifications provided better correlations between clinical and imaging stroke features and were better able to discriminate among stroke outcomes than were two conventional, non-automated classification methods."
There are more than 150 different possible causes - or etiologies - of ischemic stroke, and approximately half of patients exhibit features suggesting more than one possible cause. This leads to considerable complexity in determining the cause of a stroke and, in roughly one of two patients, can lead to disagreements among physicians about the cause. The CCS software helps to reduce this complexity by exploiting classification criteria that are well defined, replicable and based on evidence rather than subjective assessment.
The CCS software does this in several ways. First, it weights the possible etiologies by considering the relative potential of each to cause a stroke. Second, in the presence of multiple potential causes it incorporates the clinical and imaging features that make one mechanism more probable than others for an individual patient. Third, it determines the likelihood of that cause by taking into account the number of diagnostic tests that were performed. And finally, it ensures that data is entered in a consistent manner. The software can also serve as an important research tool, by providing investigators with both the ability to examine how stroke etiologies interact with one another and the flexibility to define new etiology subtypes according to the needs of the individual research project.
The MGH team previously showed that use of the CCS algorithm reduced the disagreement rate among physicians from 50 percent to approximately 20 percent. The recently published JAMA Neurology study further established the utility of the algorithm by demonstrating its ability to generate categories of etiologies with different clinical, imaging and prognostic characteristics for 1,816 ischemic stroke patients enrolled in two previous MGH-based studies. Based on patient data, CCS was able to assign etiologies to 20 to 40 percent of the patients for which two other systems were unable to determine a cause. It also was better at determining the likelihood of second stroke within 90 days.
"The validity data that have emerged from the current study add to the utility of the software-based approach and highlight once again that careful identification and accurate classification of the underlying etiology is paramount for every patient with stroke," says Ay, who is an associate professor of Radiology at Harvard Medical School. "The information the software provides not only is critical for effective stroke prevention but also could increase the chances for new discoveries by enhancing the statistical power in future studies of etiologic stroke subtypes. We estimate that, compared to conventional systems, the use of CCS in stroke prevention trials testing targeted treatments for a particular etiologic subtype could reduce the required sample size by as much as 30 percent."
The MGH-licensed CCS is available at https://ccs.mgh.harvard.edu/ and is free for academic use. The software was designed to be a "living algorithm" and can accommodate new information as it emerges. New etiology-specific biomarkers, genetic markers, imaging markers and clinical features that become available can be incorporated into the existing CCS algorithm to further enhance its ability to determine the underlying causes of stroke.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Cryptogenic stroke

Unknown origin of the stroke. As a computer programmer my manager never let me get away with saying the problem could not be explained or solved. If I continued to make excuses I would have been fired.  Your neurologist should never be let off the hook and not explain the origin of the stroke. I don't care how fucking long it takes, I have spent 3-6 months at a time solving some of my most difficult challenges.

Hospital saw three adult ADHD patients with ischemic stroke in one week

Thursday, October 15, 2015

Cryptogenic Stroke: Getting at the 'Unknown Unknowns'

'Unknown' would never be allowed in the business world. Why is it allowed in the medical field? It would seem that the first thing you do is a CT or MRI scan to determine the exact location, determine if it is a bleed or clot and go from there. This is solveable. What is the protocol for diagnosing a stroke cause? If we don't have a protocol everyone in stroke leadership should be fired.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Strokes/54102?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2015-10-15&eun=g424561d0r
Physicians trying to figure out the cause of an unexplained stroke need to take a lesson from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, according to Mitchell Elkind, MD.
In particular, Rumsfeld's reference to "unknown unknowns" -- things we don't know that we don't know -- is a useful idea, said Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University in New York City, at a meeting here last week on cryptogenic stroke sponsored by Medtronic, the American Heart Association, and the American Stroke Association.
Advertisement
"In many cases, we just may not have looked for those things that could have caused the stroke," he said.
Cryptogenic stroke is defined as "a brain infarct not attributed to a definite source of large-vessel atherosclerosis, cardioembolism, or small vessel disease; it can be in the presence of an extensive work-up, incomplete evaluation, or more than one cause," Elkind said.
A more recent evolution of the concept is ESUS, for "embolic stroke of undetermined [or unknown] source." This definition, he continued, implies that "the patient has had a full evaluation to show they don't have [a] small-vessel stroke, no evidence of extracranial or intracranial atherosclerosis, no major-risk cardioembolic source, and they have no other specific cause" such as a dissection.
Cryptogenic stroke accounts for around 200,000 to 250,000 strokes per year, and minorities such as African Americans and Hispanics are disproportionately affected, Elkind said. Although common causes of stroke, such as atrial fibrillation (Afib), are well-known, "more recent evidence suggests there probably are a number of other atrial abnormalities also associated with stroke, such as other arrhythmias, blood markers like BMP, an enlarged left atrium, and abnormalities on EKG," he added.
If the initial evaluation of a stroke patient -- which typically includes a medical history, physical examination, blood tests, an EKG, and imaging of the brain, blood vessels, and heart -- doesn't yield a cause of a stroke, then more workups are called for. These tests for "known unknowns" could include transesophageal echocardiography, more prolonged cardiac monitoring, additional imaging of blood vessels, and further lab testing.
Advertisement
And there is a huge list of possible additional causes that might pop out at that evaluation, including migraine, genetic disorders, non-stenosing plaques, infections, sleep apnea, cardiac diseases, patent foramen ovale, and hypercoagulable states, Elkind stated.
Negative Effects
Not knowing the cause of a stroke can have a negative effect on patients and physicians alike, said Shyam Prabhakaran, MD, director of stroke research at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago. "We get lots of different things thrown at us, like 'You don't know what caused my stroke?' That's damning; 'how come you don't know something as simple as a cause of something as important as a stroke'?" he said.
Or patients will ask, "Am I a ticking time bomb?" or "Should I go get a second, third, or fourth opinion?," he continued. "Maybe you don't know [the reason], but someone else does ... If you don't know what caused it how can you tell [a patient] what to do?"
Sometimes patients will say, "'You looked for everything and I must not have some of the bad causes of stroke. I guess that's a good thing!'" Prabhakaran said. "I try to play up on that... It's the notion of half empty or half full. If we didn't find [the cause], you perhaps now have gotten yourself into a lower risk category -- you don't have atrial fibrillation, you don't have a carotid lesion that needs to be treated. I think that's the way we need to communicate."
He noted that part of the problem with cryptogenic stroke is that "there really isn't a concise diagnostic evaluation that every patient is supposed to get; there's so much variability based on where you are."
"There's really an opportunity here for this group ... to help standardize what is the expectation and what tests should be offered to these patients," Prabhakaran said. "Are there determinants of that? Are there access issues related to race, ethnicity, or income that play a role in determining who gets what tests?"
Role of Afib
Eric Prystowsky, MD, director of the cardiac arrhythmia service at St. Vincent Hospital in Indianapolis, discussed the complicated role of atrial fibrillation. "Just because you identify atrial fibrillation on the workup doesn't mean it was the cause of the stroke," he pointed out. On the other hand, if atrial fibrillation is the cause, it's sometimes difficult to detect since patients don't always feel it.
Prystowsky suggested that patients hospitalized for cryptogenic stroke who might have undiagnosed atrial fibrillation should be discharged with a monitor. "I don't understand why [cryptogenic stroke] patients don't go home with a monitor; why do you want to wait 3 months? If you haven't figured it out in the hospital and you're suspicious, you should get them on a monitor at the time of discharge."
There are also causes of stroke that no one really thinks about, said Mark Alberts, MD, professor of neurology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "We do a whole-body scan with a person who has a cryptogenic stroke and [often pick up] cancer," he said. "That's often what causes a hypercoagulable state."
Drug abuse is also not tested for often, he said, adding that when he worked at Northwestern University, "I had an edict ... Everybody who walks in with a stroke or TIA [transient ischemic attack] gets a [toxicology] screen." The oldest positive tox screen he saw was for an "80-something" patient who was using cocaine.
Role of Stroke Centers
Due to the complexity of cryptogenic stroke, "most patient benefit from a workup at a comprehensive stroke center" (CSC) such as at Southwestern, Alberts said. "The thoroughness of the workup and accuracy of diagnosis is going to vary greatly if the patient is not evaluated properly."
David Baker, MD, executive vice president for healthcare quality evaluation at the Joint Commission, in Chicago, agreed. "One of goals should be to minimize cryptogenic strokes by getting a proper workup. But if that not done, [you] need referral to CSC."
But Michael Brown, MD, chair of the clinical policies committee at the American College of Emergency Physicians, was concerned about the effects of such a recommendation. "It seems like we must consider appropriate use of resources," he said.
"A lot of what we talk about is endless workup. If you had a tiny stroke, a tiny ditzel on an MRI, that's going to initiate a cascade of events; there is a cost to this. Where does cost-effectiveness come in?"
"We would hope some of these diagnostic pathways would have stops," Baker responded. "If you hit an extremely high level of confidence, you may not need to go through a full workup for every patient." However, he added, "All of this is probably going to get dramatically worse in the next few years because of high-deductible health plans; we are going to do expensive workups and people will leave and not be able to afford their medications."
Terminology was another issue debated at the meeting. The term "cryptogenic stroke" should go away, Clyde Yancy, MD, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told MedPage Today. Instead, it should be "replaced with a specific cause for stroke or ESUS, because at least it would implicate a treatment," he said.
Alberts, for his part, objected to the use of ESUS. "That's sort of a misnomer because it implies we know it's an embolic stroke. How do you know that?" he said. "When does ESUS become just SUS?"