Awareness of Stroke Risk after TIA in Swiss General Practitioners and Hospital Physicians.

BACKGROUND Transient ischemic attacks (TIA) are stroke warning signs and emergency situations, and, if immediately investigated, doctors can intervene to prevent strokes. Nevertheless, many patients delay going to the doctor, and doctors might delay urgently needed investigations and preventative treatments. We set out to determine how much general practitioners (GPs) and hospital physicians (HPs) knew about stroke risk after TIA, and to measure their referral rates. METHODS We used a structured questionnaire to ask GPs and HPs in the catchment area of the University Hospital of Bern to estimate a patient's risk of stroke after TIA. We also assessed their referral behavior. We then statistically analysed their reasons for deciding not to immediately refer patients. RESULTS Of the 1545 physicians, 40% (614) returned the survey. Of these, 75% (457) overestimated stroke risk within 24 hours, and 40% (245) overestimated risk within 3 months after TIA. Only 9% (53) underestimated stroke risk within 24 hours and 26% (158) underestimated risk within 3 months; 78% (473) of physicians overestimated the amount that carotid endarterectomy reduces stroke risk; 93% (543) would rigorously investigate the cause of a TIA, but only 38% (229) would refer TIA patients for urgent investigations "very often". Physicians most commonly gave these reasons for not making emergency referrals: patient's advanced age; patient's preference; patient was multimorbid; and, patient needed long-term care. CONCLUSIONS Although physicians overestimate stroke risk after TIA, their rate of emergency referral is modest, mainly because they tend not to refer multimorbid and elderly patients at the appropriate rate. Since old and frail patients benefit from urgent investigations and treatment after TIA as much as younger patients, future educational campaigns should focus on the importance of emergency evaluations for all TIA patients.

Synchronous carotid and coronary bypass surgery using minimal extracorporeal circulation does not increase the risk of in-hospital stroke compared to isolated carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia

Gebiet: Chirurgie Abstract: Introduction: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) could be approached in a combined or a staged fashion. Some crucial studies have shown no significant difference in peri-operative stroke and death rate in combined versus staged CEA/CABG. At present conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) is regarded as the gold standard for performing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. On contrary, the use of minimized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) for CABG diminishes hemodilution, blood-air contact, foreign surface contact and inflammatory response. At the same time, general anaesthesia (GA) is a potential risk factor for higher perioperative stroke rate after isolated CEA, not only for the ipsilateral but also for the contralateral side especially in case of contralateral high-grade stenosis or occlusion. The aim of the study was to analyze if synchronous CEA/CABG using MECC (CEA/CABG group) allows reducing the perioperative stroke risk to the level of isolated CEA performed under GA (CEA-GA group). – Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent CEA at our institution between January 2005 and December 2012 was performed. We compared outcomes between all patients undergoing CEA/CABG to all isolated CEA-GA during the same time period. The CEA/CABG group was additionally compared to a reference group consisting of patients undergoing isolated CEA in local anaesthesia. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. – Results: A total of 367 CEAs were performed, from which 46 patients were excluded having either off-pump CABG or other cardiac surgery procedures than CABG combined with CEA. Out of 321 patients, 74 were in the CEA/CABG and 64 in the CEA-GA group. There was a significantly higher rate of symptomatic stenoses among patients in the CEA-GA group (p<0.002). Three (4.1%) strokes in the CEA/CABG group were registered, two ipsilateral (2.7%) and one contralateral (1.4%) to the operated side. In the CEA-GA group 2 ipsilateral strokes (3.1%) occurred. No difference was noticed between the groups (p=1.000). One patient with stroke in each group had a symptomatic stenosis preoperatively. – Conclusions: Outcome with regard to mortality and neurologic injury is very good in both -patients undergoing CEA alone as well as patients undergoing synchronous CEA and CABG using the MECC system. Although the CEA/CABG group showed slightly increased risk of stroke, it can be considered as combined treatment in particular clinical situations.