Background and Purpose-This guideline provides an overview of the evidence on established and emerging risk factors for stroke to provide evidence-based recommendations for the reduction of risk of a first stroke. Methods-Writing group members were nominated by the committee chair on the basis of their previous work in relevant topic areas and were approved by the American Heart Association (AHA) Stroke Council Scientific Statement Oversight Committee and the AHA Manuscript Oversight Committee. The writing group used systematic literature reviews (covering the time since the last review was published in 2006 up to April 2009), reference to previously published guidelines, personal files, and expert opinion to summarize existing evidence, indicate gaps in current knowledge, and when appropriate, formulate recommendations using standard AHA criteria (Tables 1 and 2). All members of the writing group had the opportunity to comment on the recommendations and approved the final version of this document. The guideline underwent extensive peer review by the Stroke Council leadership and the AHA scientific statements oversight committees before consideration and approval by the AHA Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee. Results-Schemes for assessing a person's risk of a first stroke were evaluated. Risk factors or risk markers for a first stroke were classified according to potential for modification (nonmodifiable, modifiable, or potentially modifiable) and strength of evidence (well documented or less well documented). Nonmodifiable risk factors include age, sex, low birth weight, race/ethnicity, and genetic predisposition. Well-documented and modifiable risk factors include hypertension, exposure to cigarette smoke, diabetes, atrial fibrillation and certain other cardiac conditions, dyslipidemia, carotid artery stenosis, sickle cell disease, postmenopausal hormone therapy, poor diet, physical inactivity, and obesity and body fat

BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

No abstract

A small proportion of patients admitted with acute ischemic stroke in Cleveland received tPA; they experienced a high rate of ICH. Cleveland community experience with tPA for acute ischemic stroke may differ from that reported in clinical trials.

Background-Pneumonia is an important complication of ischemic stroke and increases mortality 3-fold. Five guidelines recommend a dysphagia screen before oral intake. What constitutes an adequate dysphagia screen and which patients should receive it remain unclear. Methods-Fifteen acute care institutions prospectively collected data on all admitted patients with acute ischemic stroke.Sites were required to collect data on demographics and 4 quality indicators. Optional data included stroke severity and complications. We measured adherence to a screen for dysphagia, the type of screen, and development of in-hospital pneumonia. Results-Between December 2001 and January 2003, 2532 cases were collected. In-hospital complications were recorded on 2329 (92%) of cases. Stroke severity was captured on 1361 (54%). Adherence to a dysphagia screen was 61%. Six sites had a formal dysphagia screen, and their adherence rate was 78% compared with 57% at sites with no formal screen. The pneumonia rate at sites with a formal dysphagia screen was 2.4% versus 5.4% (Pϭ0.0016) at sites with no formal screen. There was no difference in median stroke severity (5 versus 4; Pϭ0.84) between the sites with and without a formal screen. A formal dysphagia screen prevented pneumonia even after adjusting for stroke severity. Conclusions-A formal dysphagia screen is associated with a higher adherence rate to dysphagia screens and a significantly decreased risk of pneumonia. A formal screening protocol should be offered to all stroke patients, regardless of stroke severity.