Contemporary trends, treatments, and outcomes in theUnited States

Background Nationwide data on patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) are lacking. We evaluated patient and hospital characteristics, in-hospital treatments, and discharge outcomes among patients with CS compared with other subtypes in the Get With The Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke registry. Methods We identified patients with ischemic stroke (IS) admitted to GWTG-Stroke participating hospitals between January 1, 2016, and September 30, 2017, with documented National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scale and stroke etiology (cardioembolic [CE], large artery atherosclerosis [LAA], small vessel occlusion [SVO], other determined etiology [OTH], or CS). Using multivariable logistic regression, we compared hospital treatments and discharge outcomes by subtype, adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics. Results Among 316,623 patients from 1,687 hospitals, there were 63,301 (20.0%) patients with CS. In multivariable analysis, patients with CS received IV thrombolysis more often than other subtypes and had lower mortality than CE, LAA, and OTH but higher mortality than SVO. They were more likely to be discharged home than all other subtypes and be independent at discharge than LAA, OTH, or SVO. Conclusions In a large contemporary nationwide registry, CS accounted for 20% of ISs among patients with a documented stroke etiology. Patients with CS had a distinct profile of treatments and outcomes relative to other subtypes. Improved subtype documentation and further research into CS are warranted to improve care and outcomes for patients with stroke.

[1]  S. Connolly,et al.  Rivaroxaban for Stroke Prevention after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source , 2018, The New England journal of medicine.

[2]  H. Diener,et al.  Secondary Stroke Prevention in Cryptogenic Stroke and Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (ESUS) , 2017, Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports.

[3]  H. Kamel,et al.  Atrial cardiopathy: a mechanism of cryptogenic stroke , 2017, Expert review of cardiovascular therapy.

[4]  T. Asil,et al.  Etiological classification of ischemic stroke in young patients: a comparative study of TOAST, CCS, and ASCO , 2017, Acta Neurologica Belgica.

[5]  L. Schwamm,et al.  The American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines (GWTG)-Stroke development and impact on stroke care , 2017, Stroke and Vascular Neurology.

[6]  H. Kamel,et al.  Potential new uses of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants to treat and prevent stroke , 2015, Neurology.

[7]  H. Markus,et al.  Stroke Subtyping for Genetic Association Studies? A Comparison of the CCS and TOAST Classifications , 2013, International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society.

[8]  M. Hennerici,et al.  The ASCOD Phenotyping of Ischemic Stroke (Updated ASCO Phenotyping) , 2013, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[9]  B. Kissela,et al.  Interobserver agreement in the trial of org 10172 in acute stroke treatment classification of stroke based on retrospective medical record review. , 2006, Journal of stroke and cerebrovascular diseases : the official journal of National Stroke Association.

[10]  Olaf Gefeller,et al.  Epidemiology of Ischemic Stroke Subtypes According to TOAST Criteria: Incidence, Recurrence, and Long-Term Survival in Ischemic Stroke Subtypes: A Population-Based Study , 2001, Stroke.

[11]  H. Diener,et al.  Risk Factors, Outcome, and Treatment in Subtypes of Ischemic Stroke: The German Stroke Data Bank , 2001, Stroke.

[12]  Hyo Suk Nam,et al.  Yonsei Stroke Registry , 2001, Cerebrovascular Diseases.

[13]  Daniel B Hier,et al.  Infarcts of undetermined cause: The NINCDS stroke data bank , 1989, Annals of neurology.