Datasets:

---

Recag

/

Rp_CommonC_265

like 0

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://profreg.medscape.com/px/getpracticeprofile.do?method=getProfessionalProfile&urlCache=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbWVkaWNpbmUubWVkc2NhcGUuY29tL2FydGljbGUvMzIzNjYyLW92ZXJ2aWV3\nDrugs & Diseases > Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation\nStroke Prevention\nAuthor: Brian Silver, MD, FRCPC, FAHA, FAAN, FANA; Chief Editor: Stephen Kishner, MD, MHA more...\nSections Stroke Prevention\nPrimary Prevention of Stroke\nSecondary Prevention of Stroke\nPrimary stroke prevention refers to the treatment of individuals with no history of stroke. Secondary stroke prevention refers to the treatment of individuals who have already had a stroke or transient ischemic attack.\nRisk-reduction measures in primary stroke prevention may include the use of antihypertensive medications, anticoagulants, platelet antiaggregants, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), smoking cessation, dietary intervention, weight loss, and exercise.\nModifiable risk factors include the following:\nPostmenopausal HRT\nDiet and activity\nWeight and body fat\nSecondary prevention can be summarized by the mnemonic A, B, C, D, E, as follows:\nA - Antiaggregants (aspirin, clopidogrel, extended-release dipyridamole, ticlopidine) and anticoagulants (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, warfarin)\nB - Blood pressure–lowering medications\nC - Cessation of cigarette smoking, cholesterol-lowering medications, carotid revascularization\nD - Diet\nE – Exercise\nSmoking cessation, blood pressure control, diabetes control, a low-fat diet (eg, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension [DASH] or Mediterranean diets), weight loss, and regular exercise should be encouraged.\nPrimary prevention of stroke refers to the treatment of individuals with no previous history of stroke. Risk-reduction measures may include the use of antihypertensive medications; warfarin; platelet antiaggregants; 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins); smoking cessation; dietary intervention; weight loss; and exercise.\nSecondary prevention refers to the treatment of individuals who have already had a stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Measures may include the use of platelet antiaggregants, antihypertensives, statins, and lifestyle interventions.\nMost primary and secondary stroke prevention recommendations focus on ischemic stroke, but some apply to hemorrhagic stroke, or to cerebral venous thrombosis.\nAccording to the INTERSTROKE study, approximately 90% of the worldwide stroke burden can be attributed to the following 10 potentially modifiable risk factors, collectively [1, 2] :\nHistory of hypertension or blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg\nApolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-I ratio\nPsychosocial factors\nCurrent smoking\nCardiac causes\nThe study included 26,919 participants from 32 countries, including 10,388 with ischemic stroke and 3059 with intracerebral hemorrhage, along with 13,472 controls.\nAnother report, the Global Burden of Disease study, similarly indicated that 90.5% of the worldwide stroke burden is associated with modifiable risk factors, with 74.2% of the burden being attributable to behavioral factors, including smoking, poor diet, and low physical activity. In addition, the study included not only metabolic factors, but also environmental considerations, specifically air pollution and lead exposure, as risk factors. The report drew data from 188 countries. [3, 4]\nIn December 2010, the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Stroke Association (ASA) published newly revised Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. [5] The guidelines provide an overview of established and emerging risk factors for stroke and give evidence-based recommendations to reduce the likelihood of a first stroke in individuals at risk. Modifiable risk factors and recommendations for management are summarized below. While the previous version of the guidelines focused only on ischemic stroke, the 2010 revision added recommendations for prevention of hemorrhagic stroke. [5]\nDiagnosis and management of a rare form of stroke, cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT), was the subject of a 2011 AHA/ASA statement for healthcare professionals. Primary prevention of CVT has not been the focus of randomized clinical trials, but the AHA/ASA statement suggests that primary prevention strategies for venous thromboembolism in general may have some efficacy with respect to CVT. [6] Most CVT prevention is secondary and will be discussed in Secondary Prevention.\nHypertension is the most important modifiable risk factor for stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and the risk of stroke increases progressively with increasing blood pressure, independent of other factors. [7, 8] Both behavioral lifestyle changes and pharmacologic therapy are important parts of the comprehensive strategy recommended in the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) (also see Diet and nutrition, Physical inactivity, and Obesity and body fat distribution, below). [7]\nIn a meta-analysis of 23 randomized trials on antihypertensive medication compared with no drug therapy, a 32% reduction in stroke risk was found with pharmacologic treatment. [9] The risk of both stroke and cardiovascular events is lower when systolic blood pressures are < 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressures are < 90 mm Hg. Regular blood pressure screening and a combination of behavioral lifestyle modification and drug therapy are recommended to achieve these goals. Studies on the comparative benefits of specific classes of antihypertensive agents have not shown definitive results. In patients who have hypertension with diabetes or renal disease, the blood pressure goal is < 130/80 mm Hg. [7]\nData from the Women's Health Initiative show an increased risk of stroke over 5.4 years among postmenopausal women who have greater visit-to-visit variability in blood pressure measurements. Risk is particularly high among women with systolic blood pressures below 120 mm Hg. Whether treatment of visit-to-visit variability reduces stroke risk requires evaluation in a clinical trial. [10]\nCigarette smoking is directly correlated with an increased risk of both ischemic stroke and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), with risk for the former approximately doubled by smoking and risk for the latter increased 2- to 4-fold. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17] Smoking also appears to increase the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, especially in younger individuals. [18, 19] Data on smoking and the risk of ICH are inconclusive. Smoking also potentiates other stroke risk factors such as hypertension and oral contraceptive use. Counseling, nicotine replacement, and oral smoking-cessation medications are options that should be offered to all individuals who smoke. Cessation of smoking has been shown to reduce the risk of both stroke and cardiovascular events to levels approaching those of individuals who have never smoked. [20, 21, 22, 23]\nAs with heart disease, epidemiologic evidence indicates that environmental smoke (ie, passive or “secondhand” smoke) is associated with an increased risk of stroke. [24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29] Although data are unavailable to date that show that avoidance of environmental tobacco smoke decreases stroke risk, avoiding exposure to environmental smoke is reasonable.\nDiabetes is estimated to increase the relative risk of ischemic stroke 1.8- to nearly 6-fold, independent of other risk factors. [30] In addition, many diabetics have hypertension and dyslipidemia, both significant risk factors for stroke. Multiple studies on glycemic control in type 2 diabetics have shown no effect or inconclusive results in reducing stroke risk. However, aggressive control of hypertension in diabetics reduces stroke incidence. [31] Antihypertensive agents that are useful in the diabetic population include angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). The use of beta-adrenergic blockers has been associated with an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes. [32]\nSeveral studies have shown that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are beneficial in reducing stroke risk in diabetic individuals, especially those with other risk factors such as retinopathy, albuminuria, current smoking, or hypertension. [33, 34, 35] Treating adult diabetics with statins is recommended. Monotherapy with fibrates has also shown some benefit in reducing stroke risk in diabetics, and may also be considered. [36] Taking aspirin is reasonable in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the efficacy of aspirin for reducing stroke risk in diabetic patients remains uncertain.\nElevated total cholesterol has been linked to increased risk of ischemic stroke in a number of epidemiological studies. [37, 38, 39, 40, 41] Epidemiological studies have also shown an inverse relationship between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and stroke risk. [42] The approach to treatment of dyslipidemia for primary prevention of ischemic stroke is based on recommendations from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III). [43, 44]\nStatin therapy and therapeutic lifestyle changes are recommended for patients with coronary artery disease or certain high-risk conditions such as diabetes, with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals as outlined in the NCEP ATP III guideline. Intensive-dose statin therapy increases the risk of new-onset diabetes by 12% compared with moderate-dose statin therapy. [45] Intensive-dose statin therapy may still yield a net benefit in terms of overall outcomes. Niacin may be used in patients with low HDL cholesterol or elevated lipoprotein(a), but its efficacy in preventing ischemic stroke has not been established. Fibric acid derivatives, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and ezetimibe may be useful in patients who have not achieved target LDL with statin therapy or who cannot tolerate statins; however, the effectiveness of these agents in reducing stroke risk in patients with dyslipidemia has not been established.\nEmbolism from atrial fibrillation (AF)–associated left atrial thrombi accounts for approximately 10% of all ischemic strokes in the United States, and AF is associated with a 4- to 5-fold increase in the risk of ischemic stroke, independent of cardiac valve disease. [46, 47] Because a substantial minority of AF-related stroke occurs in older patients with previously undiagnosed AF, it may be useful to screen patients older than 65 years of age for AF in the primary care setting using pulse taking followed by an ECG.\nThe choice of therapy for primary stroke prevention in patients with AF depends on several factors, including estimated stroke risk, risk of bleeding with anticoagulation therapy, and patient preference. Among several risk stratification schemes, two widely used systems are the CHADS2 scoring system and the American College of Cardiology/AHA/European Society of Cardiology (ACC/AHA/ESC) 2006 guideline recommendations for stroke risk stratification in AF patients. [48, 49, 50, 51, 52] Adjusted-dose warfarin (target INR 2-3) anticoagulation is highly effective for preventing stroke in patients with AF, and also reduces stroke severity and poststroke mortality. [52, 53, 54, 55, 56]\nThe Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE A and ACTIVE W) has shown that adjusted-dose warfarin is superior to clopidogrel plus aspirin, and clopidogrel plus aspirin is superior to aspirin alone in preventing stroke in patients with AF. [57, 58] However, the risk of major bleeding complications, such as ICH, is higher with warfarin therapy than with the antiplatelet agents. Regular monitoring of patients on warfarin is required, especially during the first 3 months of treatment, when the risk of bleeding is greatest.\nAdjusted-dose warfarin anticoagulation is recommended for all patients with nonvalvular AF at high risk or moderate risk of stroke. Aspirin is recommended for low- and moderate-risk patients with AF. For high-risk patients in whom anticoagulation is unsuitable, a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin may provide more protection against stroke than aspirin alone. In addition to antithrombotic prophylaxis, managing blood pressure aggressively in elderly patients with AF may be useful.\nOther cardiac conditions\nApproximately 20% of ischemic strokes are caused by cardiogenic embolism. [59] Compared with noncardiogenic strokes, these strokes tend to be relatively severe, with greater neurologic deficits at admission, discharge, and 6 months after discharge. [60] Cardiac conditions associated with an increased risk of stroke include atrial arrhythmias, cardiac tumors, valvular vegetations, valvular disease, prosthetic valves, dilated cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, endocarditis, and congenital cardiac anomalies (patent foramen ovale, atrial septal defect, atrial septal aneurysm). The risk of stroke is inversely proportional to left ventricular ejection fraction, a relationship that is also seen in acute coronary syndrome. [61, 62, 63, 64]\nRecommended strategies to reduce the risk of stroke in patients with valvular heart disease, unstable angina, chronic stable angina, and acute MI are provided in practice guidelines from the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA). [65, 66, 67, 68] Warfarin therapy to prevent stroke may be reasonable in patients with left ventricular mural thrombi or an akinetic left ventricular segment after ST-segment elevation MI. [68]\nAsymptomatic carotid conditions\nAtherosclerotic stenosis in the extracranial internal carotid artery or carotid bulb is associated with an increased risk of stroke. Because of recent advances in both medical and interventional therapies, data comparing these modalities for asymptomatic carotid stenosis are not available at present. However, recent studies indicate that the annual rate of stroke in patients with asymptomatic stenosis who are treated medically is approximately 1% or less. [69, 70, 71]\nIt is recommended that patients with asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis be evaluated for other treatable risk factors for stroke; in general, these patients should be managed with appropriate medical therapy and lifestyle modifications. Selected patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis may be appropriate for carotid revascularization, based on an assessment of the patient's comorbid conditions, life expectancy, and other individual factors. Prophylactic carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed with less than 3% morbidity and mortality may be useful in highly selected patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (≥60% stenosis on angiography or ≥70% on Doppler ultrasonography). Patients undergoing CEA should also be treated with aspirin unless contraindicated.\nProphylactic carotid artery angioplasty and stenting (CAS) may be considered in highly selected patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis (≥60% stenosis on angiography, ≥70% on Doppler ultrasonography, or ≥80% on computed tomography angiography or magnetic resonance angiography [MRA] if stenosis on ultrasonography was 50-69%). The value of CAS as an interventional alternative to CEA in asymptomatic patients at high risk for a surgical procedure remains uncertain as yet. Population screening for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis is not recommended.\nSickle cell disease (SCD) typically presents early in life with hemolytic anemia and vaso-occlusive manifestations, including stroke, particularly in children with homozygous disease. The risk of stroke during childhood in patients with SCD is 1% per year; the prevalence of stroke by age 20 years is estimated to be at least 11%. [72, 73] In children with high cerebral blood flow rates (time-averaged mean velocity > 200 cm/s) on transcranial Doppler ultrasonography (TCD), the rate of stroke is greater than 10% per year. [74] TCD and other predictive criteria have not been evaluated in adults. Prior to the advent of TCD monitoring, observational data showed that children with an asymptomatic MRI lesion had a greatly increased risk of stroke in the subsequent 5 years, as compared with children with a normal MRI (8.1% vs 0.5%). [75]\nRegular, long-term red cell transfusion is the only therapy that has been shown in clinical trials to prevent stroke in children with SCD. [74] Discontinuation of therapy typically results in poor outcomes, with reversion to high-risk TCD characteristics. [76, 77] MRI-guided transfusion is under study. [78] Promising therapies under investigation include bone marrow transplantation and hydroxyurea. [79, 80, 81, 82]\nIt is recommended that children with SCD be screened with TCD at 2 years of age. It is reasonable to screen younger children and those with borderline abnormal TCD velocities more frequently to detect development of high-risk TCD indications for intervention. Children with elevated stroke risk may require transfusion therapy, which is effective in reducing stroke risk. Administration of hydroxyurea or bone marrow transplantation may be reasonable in children who are at high risk for stroke and are unable or unwilling to undergo regular red blood cell transfusion. MRI and MRA criteria for selection of children for primary stroke prevention using transfusion have not been established.\nPostmenopausal hormone replacement therapy\nThe Women's Health Initiative (WHI), a randomized clinical trial comparing conjugated equine estrogens (CEE) combined with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) versus placebo in postmenopausal women aged 55-79 years, has provoked a major reconsideration of postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy. Among other findings, the WHI showed an increased risk of stroke with CEE therapy, particularly in older subgroups. [83, 84, 85] Similar findings have been reported in other studies. [86, 87]\nSelective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) such as raloxifene, tamoxifen, or tibolone have been used for the prevention of breast cancer and osteoporotic bone density loss and for treatment of menopausal symptoms. Studies of these agents have also evaluated lowering of cardiovascular and stroke risk as secondary outcomes. No benefit in lowering the risk of MI has been found for any of these therapies, and stroke risk appears to be increased with raloxifene (HR for fatal stroke, 1.49; absolute risk, 0.07 per 100 women after 1 year) and tibolone (relative hazard, 2.19). [88, 89] Stroke rates with raloxifene and tamoxifen appear to be similar. [90]\nHormone therapy and SERMs such as raloxifene, tamoxifen, or tibolone should not be used for primary prevention of stroke in postmenopausal women.\nRandomized clinical trials evaluating stroke risk with oral contraceptive (OC) use have not been performed. Meta-analyses of cohort and case-control studies have indicated an approximate doubling of relative risk, though findings of individual studies are inconsistent. [91, 92, 93] Nevertheless, the highest estimated absolute stroke risk with OC use (20 per 100,000) remains well below that associated with pregnancy (34 per 100,000 deliveries). [94, 95]\nAs the 2011 AHA/ASA CVT statement notes, both OC use and pregnancy are risk factors for CVT. Among younger women diagnosed with CVT who were not pregnant, the great majority were OC users. [6]\nOn the other hand, well-established risk factors that increase stroke risk with OC use include older age, cigarette smoking, hypertension, and migraine headache. [96] More recently, obesity and hypercholesterolemia, factor V Leiden, and methyl tetrahydrofolate reductase mutation (MTHFR 677TT) have been identified as factors that increase stroke risk in OC users compared with women with these risk factors who do not use OCs. [97, 98]\nOral contraceptives may be harmful in women with additional risk factors for stroke such as smoking or prior thromboembolic events. The combination of a hereditary prothrombotic factor with OC use increases the risk of CVT. [99] Aggressive therapy for stroke risk factors may be reasonable in women who choose to take oral contraceptives despite their increased risks.\nDepression is increasingly being recognized as a possible contributor to stroke. In a prospective study of 9601 Western European middle-aged men, baseline depression nearly doubled the risk of stroke during years 5-10 of the 10-year study. The risk of coronary artery disease increased 43% during the first 5 years, after adjusting for age, baseline socioeconomic factors, traditional vascular risk factors, and antidepressant treatment. [100]\nSeveral aspects of diet and nutrition can lead to increased blood pressure, including increased salt or sodium intake, decreased potassium intake, excess weight, and excess alcohol consumption. [101] Because hypertension is the major modifiable risk factor for stroke, a diet that is low in sodium and high in potassium, as indicated in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans from the US Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Agriculture, is recommended to reduce blood pressure. [102] Diets that promote the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy products, as well as reduced intake of saturated fats (eg, DASH-style diets) help lower blood pressure and may lower risk of stroke.\nReduction of homocysteine levels through folate supplementation has not resulted in a reduced rate of stroke in randomized trials. The effect may largely be mitigated by the fact that the studies were performed in regions of baseline high-folate consumption. Uncertainty exists about a possible benefit in regions of low-folate consumption. [103]\nPhysical inactivity is associated with an increased risk of stroke and other adverse effects, such as cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Increased physical activity may decrease the risk of stroke by 25-30%. [104, 105, 106] Physical activity is also known to have a positive effect on control of blood pressure and diabetes, two significant risk factors for stroke.\nThe recommended goal for physical activity for adults, as indicated in the 2008 Guidelines for Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans from the US Department of Health and Human Services, is to engage in at least 150 minutes (2 hours and 30 minutes) per week of moderate intensity or 75 minutes (1 hour and 15 minutes) per week of vigorous intensity aerobic physical activity. [104]\nObesity and body fat distribution\nAlthough no clinical trials have tested the effect of weight loss on stroke risk, numerous studies have examined the relationship between weight or adiposity and risk of stroke. In one meta-analysis of body mass index (BMI) and stroke risk, each 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI was associated with a 40% increased risk of stroke mortality in individuals with BMI greater than 25 kg/m2. [107] Furthermore, in studies comparing the predictive value of BMI and abdominal body fat, abdominal body fat has also been found to be a stronger predictor of stroke risk. [108, 109, 110, 111] Multivariate analyses controlling for risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia show a consistent, though weaker, relationship between BMI and stroke risk, suggesting that the effects of adiposity are mediated in part through these other risk factors.\nThus, in overweight and obese persons, weight reduction is recommended to reduce blood pressure and risk of stroke.\nA healthy lifestyle includes elements such as smoking avoidance, appropriate body mass index, physical activity, vegetable consumption, and alcohol moderation. At least one study has found a reduced incidence of total, ischemic, and hemorrhagic stroke when there is an adherence to more of the elements of a healthy lifestyle. [112] The partial population attributable risk associated with adherence to 3, 4, and 5 elements was 26.3%, 43.8%, and 54.6% for all types of stroke. The corresponding numbers for ischemic stroke were 22.7%, 45.3%, and 59.7%; and for hemorrhagic stroke were 35%, 35%, and 36.1%. The lack of increase of attributable risk with hemorrhagic stroke suggests a ceiling effect and a greater contribution of genetic factors.\nIn addition, the INTERSTROKE study found that the population attributable risk for all stroke was 90.3% when 10 risk factors were considered (hypertension, current smoking, waist-to-hip ratio, diet risk score, regular physical activity, diabetes mellitus, alcohol intake, psychosocial stress and depression, cardiac causes, and ratio of apolipoproteins B to A1). [113]\nIn 2014, the AHA and ASA again updated their guidelines, with new recommendations including the following for primary stroke prevention [114, 115] :\nUse of new oral anticoagulants, including dabigatran, apixaban, and rivaroxaban, in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation\nHome self-monitoring of blood pressure in hypertensive patients\nUse of nonestrogen oral contraceptives in female patients with migraine with aura\nFollowing the Mediterranean diet, supplemented with nuts, and reduction of sodium intake\nScreening for sleep apnea\nA - Antiaggregants (aspirin, clopidogrel, extended-release dipyridamole, ticlopidine) and anticoagulants (warfarin)\nE - Exercise\nClosure with a percutaneous device is often recommended for patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO), but this intervention may not reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. The CLOSURE-I study [116] was a randomized trial of PFO closure plus best medical therapy versus best medical therapy alone. In just over 900 patients, the rate of stroke at 2 years was approximately 3% and did not differ significantly between groups. The rate of stroke was not significantly different among those patients with larger PFOs and those with atrial septal aneurysms. Further, the risk of atrial fibrillation was approximately 5% and the risk of major vascular complications was 3% in the closure group. At this time, PFO closure is not recommended for the general patient with stroke and incidental finding of PFO. Additional randomized trials are forthcoming.\nPlatelet antiaggregants\nAccording to the 2011 AHA/ASA guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (secondary prevention), optimal medical treatment in patients with carotid artery stenosis and a TIA includes antiplatelet therapy, statins, and risk factor modification. [117]\nA 15% relative risk reduction in vascular events (stroke, death, MI) has been documented for aspirin compared with placebo. [118] No clear evidence suggests that high doses (eg, 1300 mg/d) are more effective than low doses (eg, 50 mg/d). Doses prescribed vary worldwide. [119] The usual dose in North American practice varies from 81 to 325 mg daily. Adverse effects of aspirin include gastritis (common to most antiplatelet agents), tinnitus, and hearing loss (especially at high doses).\nOn September 8, 2015, Durlaza, the first 24-hour, extended-release aspirin capsule (162.5mg), was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the secondary prevention of stroke and acute cardiac events, including myocardial infarction.\nA relative risk reduction of approximately 9% for stroke, death, and MI has been reported for ticlopidine (Ticlid) compared with aspirin. [120] Blood monitoring is required (a complete blood count assessed every 2 wk for 3 mo). The recommended dose is 250 mg twice daily (bid). Adverse effects include diarrhea (20%), skin rash (14%), and reversible agranulocytosis (1%). High discontinuation rates are common because of adverse effects.\nA relative risk reduction of approximately 9% for stroke, death, and MI has been reported for clopidogrel (Plavix) compared with aspirin (an absolute risk reduction of about 0.25% per year). [121] No blood monitoring is required with clopidogrel (unlike ticlopidine). The recommended dose is 75 mg daily. The adverse effects are similar to those of aspirin. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is seen in rare circumstances with clopidogrel. [122]\nThe European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS-2) showed that extended-release dipyridamole (Persantine) is more effective than placebo in preventing stroke when given as an extended-release formulation at a dosage of 200 mg bid. [123] Furthermore, ESPS-2 and the European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia Trial (ESPRIT) trial showed that dipyridamole was more effective in combination with aspirin than was aspirin alone. [124, 125] The typical dose of aspirin in these studies was less than 100 mg per day. At this time, evidence that short-acting dipyridamole is as efficacious as extended-release dipyridamole is insufficient.\nThe combination of extended-release dipyridamole and aspirin reduces the relative risk of stroke, death, and MI by about 20% (approximately a 1% absolute risk reduction per year). A combination capsule of aspirin 25 mg and extended-release dipyridamole 200 mg is marketed in the United States as Aggrenox for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attacks (TIAs).\nThe adverse effects profile is similar to that of aspirin, with the exception of an increased incidence of headache and GI disturbance.\nThe Seventh American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy suggested that, based on indirect comparisons, the combination of extended-release dipyridamole and aspirin was more efficacious than clopidogrel. [126]\nThe combination of clopidogrel with aspirin for long-term stroke prevention is discouraged based on the negative findings of the Management of Atherothrombosis with Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients (MATCH) and Clopidogrel for High Atherothrombotic Risk and Ischemic Stabilization, Management and Avoidance (CHARISMA) studies. In the MATCH study, life-threatening bleedings were higher in the group receiving aspirin and clopidogrel than in the group receiving clopidogrel alone (an absolute risk increase of about 1% per year). [127]\nIn May 2014, the FDA approved vorapaxar (Zontivity) to reduce the risk of MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, and need for revascularization procedures in patients with a previous MI or peripheral artery disease (PAD). It is a first-in-class antiplatelet medication that is a protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1) inhibitor. It is not indicated as monotherapy, but in addition to aspirin and/or clopidogrel.\nApproval was based on a trial of 26,499 patients that showed that time to cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or urgent coronary revascularization was decreased by 13% in patients taking vorapaxar. When coronary revascularization was excluded, the secondary endpoint of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke was also significantly reduced. [128]\nBecause of vorapaxar’s antiplatelet effects, moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 3.4% of patients compared with 2.1% of the placebo-treated group. Intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 0.6% of those taking vorapaxar compared with 0.4% taking placebo. [128]\nHMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins)\nAccording to the 2011 AHA/ASA guidelines for secondary stroke prevention, patients with atherosclerotic ischemic stroke or TIA without known coronary heart disease should have LDL cholesterol treated with the goal of at least a 50% reduction or a target of less than 70 mg/dL. [117]\nMilionis et al showed a 10-year risk reduction for recurrent stroke when statin therapy was\nadded after a first stroke. Statin use also reduced the risk of mortality, even after adjustment for potential confounders, such as blood pressure control, the investigators reported. The study was a retrospective, observational analysis of 794 patients hospitalized for a first-time ischemic stroke that linked hospitalization and death records from the Athenian Stroke Registry. The analysis included a period, from January 1997 onward, during which poststroke statin therapy was not common practice. [129]\nIn patients with a history of coronary artery disease, pravastatin decreases the risk of future stroke (relative risk reduction of 32% compared with placebo), even in patients with normal serum cholesterol levels. [130]\nIn patients with a history of coronary disease, other vascular disease, or diabetes, the British Heart Study showed a 25% reduction in the risk of stroke with simvastatin at 40 mg per day (an absolute risk reduction of about 1.4% over 5 years). The benefit was independent of the baseline serum cholesterol level, down to a level of 140 mg/dL. The reduction in stroke risk was uniformly reduced after the first year, through the end of the study at 5 years. [131]\nThe Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol levels (SPARCL) trial, which looked at patients without a history of coronary artery disease and who had a serum LDL cholesterol level of 100-180 mg/dL, found that 80 mg per day of atorvastatin reduced the risk of recurrent stroke by about 16% over 5 years. [132]\nAntihypertensives\nAt this time, first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension in stroke include thiazide diuretics, calcium-channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Beta blockers are considered second-line agents, given their inferiority in preventing events despite similar reductions in blood pressure.\nIn the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, the addition of an ACE inhibitor (ramipril) to all other medical therapy, including antiplatelet agents, reduced the relative risk of stroke, death, and MI by 32% compared with placebo. [133] Only 40% of the efficacy of ramipril could be attributed to its blood pressure–lowering effects. Postulated mechanisms included endothelial protection.\nWhether the beneficial effect of ramipril represents a class effect of ACE inhibitors or whether it is a property unique to ramipril is unclear.\nIn the Perindopril Protection Against Recurrent Stroke Study (PROGRESS), a regimen based on perindopril, an ACE inhibitor, was superior to placebo. However, perindopril alone was not superior to placebo, but the combination of perindopril with indapamide (a thiazide diuretic) substantially reduced the recurrence of stroke. [134] Much of the effect in reducing stroke recurrence was due to the lowering of blood pressure, in contrast to findings from the HOPE study.\nThe Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) showed slight superiority of chlorthalidone (a thiazide diuretic) to lisinopril (an ACE inhibitor) in terms of stroke occurrence. [135]\nThe Losartan Intervention for Endpoint Reduction in Hypertension Study (LIFE) demonstrated that an ARB (losartan) was superior to a beta blocker (atenolol) in reducing the occurrence of stroke. [136]\nThe Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) study found that the ARB eprosartan was superior in the secondary prevention of stroke and TIA to the calcium-channel blocker nitrendipine. This was true despite comparable reductions in blood pressure. [137] The absolute annual difference in stroke and TIA risk was approximately 4%. The study was relatively small, and most events were TIAs.\nIn secondary stroke prevention, the incidences of stroke with warfarin, aspirin, and placebo are 4%, 10%, and 12% per year, respectively. The relative risk reduction of warfarin was 70% compared with placebo.\nRecommendations of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) in cases of atrial fibrillation are as follows:\nWarfarin should be used for all high-risk patients and for all patients older than age 75 years regardless of their risk.\nLow-risk patients (ie, those with only atrial fibrillation) and patients younger than age 65 years should be treated with aspirin.\nPatients aged 65-75 years without risk factors may or may not be given warfarin at the discretion of the treating clinician, as their condition may be based on other underlying disorders (eg, valvular disease, prosthetic valve replacement). [138]\nThe dose is variable. The target INR is 2-3. Adverse effects include excessive bleeding. The major concern is intracranial hemorrhage.\nThe 2011 AHA/ASA secondary stroke prevention guidelines state that for patients with atrial fibrillation who are at high risk for stroke and require brief interruption of oral anticoagulants, subcutaneous low-molecular-weight heparin can be used as bridging therapy. [117]\nThe Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE-W) found that the combination of clopidogrel plus aspirin was less effective for stroke prevention than was warfarin. Furthermore, intracranial hemorrhage was more common in the dual antiplatelet group. [58]\nThe 2011 AHA/ASA secondary stroke prevention guidelines also advise using aspirin alone, rather than with clopidogrel, in patients with atrial fibrillation with a bleeding contraindication to warfarin. This is because the aspirin/clopidogrel combination has a bleeding risk similar to that of warfarin. [117]\nAntiphospholipid antibody syndrome is the presence of lupus anticoagulant and/or cardiolipin antibody. The Antiphospholipid Antibodies and Stroke Study (APASS) showed no advantage to the use of warfarin (INR of 1.4-2.8) over aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with antiphospholipid antibodies. In addition, the risk of stroke did not appear to be increased in patients with positive antibodies. [139]\nPatients with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome and previous thrombosis are treated with warfarin. An INR of 2.0-3.0 is an appropriate therapeutic target. An INR of 3.1-4.0 is not superior. [140]\nAn interesting observation is that arterial events follow arterial events and that venous events follow venous events in 91% of patients. According to the 2011 AHA/ASA CVT statement, prevention strategies for CVT are focused on venous events such as recurrence of CVT or other venous thromboembolism. Anticoagulation is the mainstay of acute treatment for CVT, and short or extended anticoagulant therapy is often used for secondary prevention after CVT, but no clinical trials have studied this use. Because new systemic venous thromboembolism is more common than recurrent CVT after CVT, it may be generally reasonable to prevent both by adopting venous thromboembolism prevention guidelines. However, the CVT statement recommends testing patients for prothrombotic conditions 2-4 weeks after completion of acute anticoagulant treatment (if they are not taking warfarin) in order to determine individual thrombosis risk. [6]\nPatients whose CVT was provoked by a transient risk factor may be treated with vitamin K antagonists for 3-6 months, while patients with unprovoked CVT may continue vitamin K antagonist therapy for 6-12 months. For patients with recurrent CVT, venous thromboembolism after CVT, or initial CVT combined with severe thrombophilia, clinicians may consider indefinitely extended anticoagulation. [6]\nThe 2011 AHA/ASA secondary stroke prevention guidelines recommend aspirin (50-325 mg/d) and not warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with a stroke or TIA caused by 50-99% stenosis of an intracranial artery. Blood pressure of less than 140/90 mm HG and total cholesterol of less than 200 mg/dL are considered reasonable goals. [117]\nRegarding intracranial atherosclerosis, the Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial Disease (WSAID) investigators compared warfarin with aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with stroke and intracranial stenosis documented on angiography. The study was stopped prematurely when an increased risk of major hemorrhage, MI, and death was found in patients taking warfarin, with no difference in prevention of ischemic stroke. [141]\nRegarding noncardioembolic stroke, the Warfarin Versus Aspirin Recurrent Stroke Study (WARSS) compared warfarin with aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with assorted causes of noncardioembolic stroke. The risk of hemorrhage was greater with warfarin, and no advantage was seen relative to aspirin. [142]\nIn patients with a mean age of 59 years who had a patent foramen ovale (PFO), with or without an atrial septal aneurysm, the Patent Foramen Ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study (PICSS) showed no advantage of warfarin over heparin for the prevention of secondary stroke. [99] These cardiac features did not seem to affect the risk of stroke.\nDirect thrombin inhibitors and factor Xa inhibitors\nApixaban, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and edoxaban are alternatives to warfarin for high-risk patients (including those with a history of stroke) who have atrial fibrillation. [143, 144, 145, 146, 147] Apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban inhibit factor Xa, whereas dabigatran is a direct thrombin inhibitor. Apixaban and dabigatran were shown to be superior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism, while rivaroxaban and edoxaban were shown to be equivalent. The rates of intracranial hemorrhage are lower for all four drugs compared with warfarin. Dabigatran carries a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin, and it appears to increase the risk of myocardial infarction. [148] These medications have not been compared against each other.\nStudy results indicated that, particularly in the case of secondary stroke prevention, the ischemic stroke risk is significantly lower when rivaroxaban is combined with aspirin than it is with aspirin alone. According to the study, the risk is almost halved by use of the combined drugs; moreover, use of the medications together did not result in a significantly greater risk for intracranial hemorrhage over aspirin alone. [149, 150]\nEdoxaban (Savaysa) was approved by the FDA in January 2015 to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial (n=21,105), edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in terms of preventing stroke and systemic embolism. In addition, rates of major bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes were significantly lower with edoxaban than with warfarin. [147]\nApixaban (Eliquis) was approved by the FDA in December 2012. Approval was based on 2 clinical trials. The ARISTOTLE (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation) trial compared apixaban with warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. Results showed that apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. [143]\nThe second trial, AVERROES (Apixaban Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid [ASA] to Prevent Stroke in Atrial Fibrillation Patients Who Have Failed or Are Unsuitable for Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment), compared apixaban with aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation for whom warfarin therapy was considered unsuitable. The trial was stopped early at an interim analysis because apixaban showed a significant reduction in stroke and systemic embolism compared with aspirin (P < 0.0001). A modest increase of major bleeding was observed with apixaban compared with aspirin (P =0.07). [144]\nPCSK9 inhibitors\nIn December 2017, the FDA approved evolocumab (Repatha), a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, for use, by adults with cardiovascular disease, in the reduction of stroke, myocardial infarction, and coronary revascularization risk. Approval stemmed from results of the FOURIER clinical trial, which reported that the use of a combination of evolocumab and optimized statin therapy cut the risk of stroke, heart attack, and coronary revascularization by 21%, 27%, and 22%, respectively. [151, 152]\nIn April 2019, the FDA expanded the indication for alirocumab (Praluent) to include risk reduction for myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization, in adults with established cardiovascular disease. Approval was based on the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, which included patients (n = 18,924) who not only had elevated LDL cholesterol despite treatment with maximally tolerated statins but who had also been hospitalized with myocardial infarction or unstable angina within the year prior to study randomization. Compared with a placebo group, the risk for major cardiovascular events and all-cause death were, by median 2.8-year follow-up, both reduced by 15% in patients who were injected with alirocumab 75 mg or 150 mg every other week. [153, 154]\nCarotid revascularization\nCerebrovascular bypass of an occluded carotid artery was developed in the late 1960s. The technique involves the anastomosis of the superficial temporal artery to the middle cerebral artery. The extracranial-intracranial bypass study, published in 1985, did not find a benefit with the procedure in addition to best medical therapy. The 30-day risk of stroke was 12.2%. [155] The Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study reviewed patients who had a carotid occlusion and cerebral hemispheric ischemia as determined by positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. Though graft patency was excellent (98%) and blood flow improved on PET, recurrent stroke rates at 2 years were no better in the surgical group compared with the nonsurgical group (21% vs 22.7%). In addition, 30-day rates of stroke were significantly higher in the surgical group (14.4% vs 2%). [156]\nLifestyle interventions\nSmoking cessation, blood pressure control, diabetes control, a low-fat diet (eg, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension [DASH] or Mediterranean diets), weight loss, and regular exercise should be encouraged as strongly as the medications described above. Written prescriptions for exercise and medications for smoking cessation (nicotine patch, bupropion, varenicline) increase the likelihood of success with these interventions.\nO'Donnell MJ, Chin SL, Rangarajan S, et al. Global and regional effects of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with acute stroke in 32 countries (INTERSTROKE): a case-control study. Lancet. 2016 Aug 20. 388 (10046):761-75. [Medline].\nHughes S. INTERSTROKE Highlights Urgent Need for Stroke Prevention. Medscape Medical News. 2016 Jul 26. [Full Text].\nFeigin VL, Roth GA, Naghavi M, et al. Global burden of stroke and risk factors in 188 countries, during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet Neurol. 2016 Aug. 15 (9):913-24. [Medline].\nHughes S. 90% of Stroke Burden Can Be Avoided. Medscape Medical News. 2016 Jun 13. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Goldstein LB, Bushnell CD, Adams RJ, et al. Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke. A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2010 Dec. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Saposnik G, Barinagarrementeria F, Brown RD Jr, Bushnell CD, Cucchiara B, Cushman M, et al. Diagnosis and management of cerebral venous thrombosis: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2011 Apr. 42(4):1158-92. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. The Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003. 289(19):2560-72. [Medline].\nLewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002. 360(9349):1903-13. [Medline].\nPsaty BM, Lumley T, Furberg CD, Schellenbaum G, Pahor M, Alderman MH, et al. Health outcomes associated with various antihypertensive therapies used as first-line agents: a network meta-analysis. JAMA. 2003. 289(19):2534-44. [Medline].\nShimbo D, Newman JD, Aragaki AK, Lamonte MJ, Bavry AA, Allison M, et al. Association Between Annual Visit-to-Visit Blood Pressure Variability and Stroke in Postmenopausal Women: Data From the Women's Health Initiative. Hypertension. 2012 Jul 2. [Medline].\nWolf PA, D'Agostino RB, Belanger AJ, Kannel WB. Probability of stroke: a risk profile from the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991. 22(3):312-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nRodriguez BL, D'Agostino R, Abbott RD, et al. Risk of hospitalized stroke in men enrolled in the Honolulu Heart Program and the Framingham Study: A comparison of incidence and risk factor effects. Stroke. 2002. 33(1):230-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nManolio TA, Kronmal RA, Burke GL, O'Leary DH, Price TR. Short-term predictors of incident stroke in older adults. The Cardiovascular Health Study. Stroke. 1996. 27(9):1479-86. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFeigin V, Parag V, Lawes CM, et al. Smoking and elevated blood pressure are the most important risk factors for subarachnoid hemorrhage in the Asia-Pacific region: an overview of 26 cohorts involving 306,620 participants. Stroke. 2005. 36(7):1360-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFeigin VL, Rinkel GJ, Lawes CM, et al. Risk factors for subarachnoid hemorrhage: an updated systematic review of epidemiological studies. Stroke. 2005. 36(12):2773-80. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKurth T, Kase CS, Berger K, Gaziano JM, Cook NR, Buring JE. Smoking and risk of hemorrhagic stroke in women. Stroke. 2003. 34(12):2792-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKurth T, Kase CS, Berger K, Schaeffner ES, Buring JE, Gaziano JM. Smoking and the risk of hemorrhagic stroke in men. Stroke. 2003. 34(5):1151-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nReducing the Health Consequences of Smoking: 25 Years of Progress. A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. 1989.\nThe surgeon general’s 1989 report on reducing the health consequences of smoking: 25 years of progress. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1989. 38(suppl 2):1-32.\nBurns DM. Epidemiology of smoking-induced cardiovascular disease. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2003. 46(1):11-29. [Medline].\nFagerstrom K. The epidemiology of smoking: health consequences and benefits of cessation. Drugs. 2002. 62 Suppl 2:1-9. [Medline].\nRobbins AS, Manson JE, Lee IM, Satterfield S, Hennekens CH. Cigarette smoking and stroke in a cohort of U.S. male physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1994 Mar 15. 120(6):458-62. [Medline].\nSong YM, Cho HJ. Risk of stroke and myocardial infarction after reduction or cessation of cigarette smoking: a cohort study in korean men. Stroke. 2008. 39(9):2432-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBonita R, Duncan J, Truelsen T, Jackson RT, Beaglehole R. Passive smoking as well as active smoking increases the risk of acute stroke. Tob Control. 1999. 8(2):156-60. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHe Y, Lam TH, Jiang B, et al. Passive smoking and risk of peripheral arterial disease and ischemic stroke in Chinese women who never smoked. Circulation. 2008. 118(15):1535-40. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nIribarren C, Darbinian J, Klatsky AL, Friedman GD. Cohort study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and risk of first ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack. Neuroepidemiology. 2004 Jan-Apr. 23(1-2):38-44. [Medline].\nQureshi AI, Suri MF, Kirmani JF, Divani AA. Cigarette smoking among spouses: another risk factor for stroke in women. Stroke. 2005 Sep. 36(9):e74-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nYou RX, Thrift AG, McNeil JJ, Davis SM, Donnan GA. Ischemic stroke risk and passive exposure to spouses' cigarette smoking. Melbourne Stroke Risk Factor Study (MERFS) Group. Am J Public Health. 1999. 89(4):572-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nZhang X, Shu XO, Yang G, et al. Association of passive smoking by husbands with prevalence of stroke among Chinese women nonsmokers. Am J Epidemiol. 2005. 161(3):213-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGuide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins; 1996.\nTuomilehto J, Rastenyte D. Diabetes and glucose intolerance as risk factors for stroke. J Cardiovasc Risk. 1999. 6(4):241-9. [Medline].\nBangalore S, Parkar S, Grossman E, Messerli FH. A meta-analysis of 94,492 patients with hypertension treated with beta blockers to determine the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2007. 100(8):1254-62. [Medline].\nCollins R, Armitage J, Parish S, Sleigh P, Peto R. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2003. 361(9374):2005-16. [Medline].\nColhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, Hitman GA, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS): multicentre randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2004. 364(9435):685-96. [Medline].\nShepherd J, Barter P, Carmena R, et al. Effect of lowering LDL cholesterol substantially below currently recommended levels in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes: the Treating to New Targets (TNT) study. Diabetes Care. 2006. 29(6):1220-6. [Medline].\nRubins HB, Robins SJ, Collins D, et al. Diabetes, plasma insulin, and cardiovascular disease: subgroup analysis from the Department of Veterans Affairs high-density lipoprotein intervention trial (VA-HIT). Arch Intern Med. 2002. 162(22):2597-604. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nIso H, Jacobs DR Jr, Wentworth D, Neaton JD, Cohen JD. Serum cholesterol levels and six-year mortality from stroke in 350,977 men screened for the multiple risk factor intervention trial. N Engl J Med. 1989. 320(14):904-10. [Medline].\nLeppälä JM, Virtamo J, Fogelholm R, Albanes D, Heinonen OP. Different risk factors for different stroke subtypes: association of blood pressure, cholesterol, and antioxidants. Stroke. 1999. 30(12):2535-40. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nZhang X, Patel A, Horibe H, et al. Cholesterol, coronary heart disease, and stroke in the Asia Pacific region. Int J Epidemiol. 2003. 32(4):563-72. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHorenstein RB, Smith DE, Mosca L. Cholesterol predicts stroke mortality in the Women's Pooling Project. Stroke. 2002. 33(7):1863-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKurth T, Everett BM, Buring JE, Kase CS, Ridker PM, Gaziano JM. Lipid levels and the risk of ischemic stroke in women. Neurology. 2007. 68(8):556-62. [Medline].\nSanossian N, Saver JL, Navab M, Ovbiagele B. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol: an emerging target for stroke treatment. Stroke. 2007. 38(3):1104-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Executive Summary of The Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001. 285(19):2486-97. [Medline].\nGrundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004. 110(2):227-39. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nPreiss D, Seshasai SR, Welsh P, Murphy SA, Ho JE, Waters DD, et al. Risk of incident diabetes with intensive-dose compared with moderate-dose statin therapy: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2011 Jun 22. 305(24):2556-64. [Medline].\nKannel WB, Benjamin EJ. Status of the epidemiology of atrial fibrillation. Med Clin North Am. 2008. 92(1):17-40, ix. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991. 22(8):983-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGage BF, Waterman AD, Shannon W, Boechler M, Rich MW, Radford MJ. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the National Registry of Atrial Fibrillation. JAMA. 2001. 285(22):2864-70. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Fuster V, Rydén LE, Cannom DS, et al. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2006. 114(7):e257-354. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHart RG, Pearce LA, Rothbart RM, McAnulty JH, Asinger RW, Halperin JL. Stroke with intermittent atrial fibrillation: incidence and predictors during aspirin therapy. Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000. 35(1):183-7. [Medline].\nHohnloser SH, Pajitnev D, Pogue J, et al. Incidence of stroke in paroxysmal versus sustained atrial fibrillation in patients taking oral anticoagulation or combined antiplatelet therapy: an ACTIVE W Substudy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007. 50(22):2156-61. [Medline].\nHart RG, Pearce LA, Halperin JL, et al. Comparison of 12 risk stratification schemes to predict stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2008. 39(6):1901-10. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHart RG, Pearce LA, Aguilar MI. Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med. 2007. 146(12):857-67. [Medline].\nAndersen KK, Olsen TS. Reduced poststroke mortality in patients with stroke and atrial fibrillation treated with anticoagulants: results from a Danish quality-control registry of 22,179 patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2007. 38(2):259-63. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHylek EM, Go AS, Chang Y, et al. Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2003. 349(11):1019-26. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nO'Donnell M, Oczkowski W, Fang J, et al. Preadmission antithrombotic treatment and stroke severity in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute ischaemic stroke: an observational study. Lancet Neurol. 2006. 5(9):749-54. [Medline].\nACTIVE Investigators, Connolly SJ, Pogue J, Hart RG, et al. Effect of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009. 360(20):2066-78. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nACTIVE Writing Group of the ACTIVE Investigators, Connolly S, Pogue J, Hart R, et al. Clopidogrel plus aspirin versus oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation in the Atrial fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial with Irbesartan for prevention of Vascular Events (ACTIVE W): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006. 367(9526):1903-12. [Medline].\nDoufekias E, Segal AZ, Kizer JR. Cardiogenic and aortogenic brain embolism. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008. 51(11):1049-59. [Medline].\nPinto A, Tuttolomondo A, Di Raimondo D, Fernandez P, Licata G. Risk factors profile and clinical outcome of ischemic stroke patients admitted in a Department of Internal Medicine and classified by TOAST classification. Int Angiol. 2006. 25(3):261-7. [Medline].\nLoh E, Sutton MS, Wun CC, et al. Ventricular dysfunction and the risk of stroke after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997. 336(4):251-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nPfeffer MA, Braunwald E, Moyé LA, et al. Effect of captopril on mortality and morbidity in patients with left ventricular dysfunction after myocardial infarction. Results of the survival and ventricular enlargement trial. The SAVE Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1992. 327(10):669-77. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interve... J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007. 50(7):e1-e157. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 focused update of the ACC/AHA 2004 guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008. 51(2):210-47. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC Jr, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association. Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998. 32(5):1486-588. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Braunwald E, Antman EM, Beasley JW, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002. 40(7):1366-74. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003. 41(1):159-68. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] Antman EM, Anbe DT, Armstrong PW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Revise the 1999 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004. 44:E1-E211.\nAbbott AL. Medical (nonsurgical) intervention alone is now best for prevention of stroke associated with asymptomatic severe carotid stenosis: results of a systematic review and analysis. Stroke. 2009. 40(10):e573-83. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMarquardt L, Geraghty OC, Mehta Z, Rothwell PM. Low risk of ipsilateral stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis on best medical treatment: a prospective, population-based study. Stroke. 2010. 41(1):e11-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWoo K, Garg J, Hye RJ, Dilley RB. Contemporary results of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke. 2010. 41(5):975-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nOhene-Frempong K, Weiner SJ, Sleeper LA,. Cerebrovascular accidents in sickle cell disease: rates and risk factors. Blood. 1998. 91(1):288-94. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAdams RJ, McKie VC, Carl EM, et al. Long-term stroke risk in children with sickle cell disease screened with transcranial Doppler. Ann Neurol. 1997. 42(5):699-704. [Medline].\nAdams RJ, McKie VC, Hsu L, et al. Prevention of a first stroke by transfusions in children with sickle cell anemia and abnormal results on transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. N Engl J Med. 1998. 339(1):5-11. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMiller ST, Macklin EA, Pegelow CH, et al. Silent infarction as a risk factor for overt stroke in children with sickle cell anemia: a report from the Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease. J Pediatr. 2001. 139(3):385-90. [Medline].\nClinical Alert from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. NHLBI website. December 5, 2004. [Full Text].\nAdams RJ, Brambilla D. Discontinuing prophylactic transfusions used to prevent stroke in sickle cell disease. N Engl J Med. 2005. 353(26):2769-78. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSilent Infarct Transfusion (SIT) Study. Updated June 8, 2010. Stroke Trials Registry website. Available at http://www.strokecenter.org/trials/TrialDetail.aspx?tid_627.\nBernaudin F, Socie G, Kuentz M, et al. Long-term results of related myeloablative stem-cell transplantation to cure sickle cell disease. Blood. 2007. 110(7):2749-56. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGulbis B, Haberman D, Dufour D, et al. Hydroxyurea for sickle cell disease in children and for prevention of cerebrovascular events: the Belgian experience. Blood. 2005. 105(7):2685-90. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKratovil T, Bulas D, Driscoll MC, Speller-Brown B, McCarter R, Minniti CP. Hydroxyurea therapy lowers TCD velocities in children with sickle cell disease. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2006. 47(7):894-900. [Medline].\nZimmerman SA, Schultz WH, Burgett S, Mortier NA, Ware RE. Hydroxyurea therapy lowers transcranial Doppler flow velocities in children with sickle cell anemia. Blood. 2007. 110(3):1043-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nRossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, et al. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002. 288(3):321-33. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nAnderson GL, Limacher M, Assaf AR, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004. 291(14):1701-12. [Medline].\nHendrix SL, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Johnson KC, et al. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen on stroke in the Women's Health Initiative. Circulation. 2006. 113(20):2425-34. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGrodstein F, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Rexrode K. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and stroke: role of time since menopause and age at initiation of hormone therapy. Arch Intern Med. 2008. 168(8):861-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nVeerus P, Hovi SL, Fischer K, Rahu M, Hakama M, Hemminki E. Results from the Estonian postmenopausal hormone therapy trial [ISRCTN35338757]. Maturitas. 2006. 55(2):162-73. [Medline].\nMosca L, Grady D, Barrett-Connor E, et al. Effect of raloxifene on stroke and venous thromboembolism according to subgroups in postmenopausal women at increased risk of coronary heart disease. Stroke. 2009. 40(1):147-55. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nCummings SR, Ettinger B, Delmas PD, et al. The effects of tibolone in older postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 2008. 359(7):697-708. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nVogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006. 295(23):2727-41. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nGillum LA, Mamidipudi SK, Johnston SC. Ischemic stroke risk with oral contraceptives: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000. 284(1):72-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nChan WS, Ray J, Wai EK, Ginsburg S, Hannah ME, Corey PN, et al. Risk of stroke in women exposed to low-dose oral contraceptives: a critical evaluation of the evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2004. 164(7):741-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nBaillargeon JP, McClish DK, Essah PA, Nestler JE. Association between the current use of low-dose oral contraceptives and cardiovascular arterial disease: a meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005. 90(7):3863-70. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKristensen B, Malm J, Carlberg B, et al. Epidemiology and etiology of ischemic stroke in young adults aged 18 to 44 years in northern Sweden. Stroke. 1997. 28(9):1702-9. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nJames AH, Bushnell CD, Jamison MG, Myers ER. Incidence and risk factors for stroke in pregnancy and the puerperium. Obstet Gynecol. 2005. 106(3):509-16. [Medline].\nChang CL, Donaghy M, Poulter N. Migraine and stroke in young women: case-control study. The World Health Organisation Collaborative Study of Cardiovascular Disease and Steroid Hormone Contraception. BMJ. 1999. 318(7175):13-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nKemmeren JM, Tanis BC, van den Bosch MA,. Risk of Arterial Thrombosis in Relation to Oral Contraceptives (RATIO) study: oral contraceptives and the risk of ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2002. 33(5):1202-8. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSlooter AJ, Rosendaal FR, Tanis BC, Kemmeren JM, van der Graaf Y, Algra A. Prothrombotic conditions, oral contraceptives, and the risk of ischemic stroke. J Thromb Haemost. 2005. 3(6):1213-7. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nHomma S, Sacco RL, Di Tullio MR, Sciacca RR, Mohr JP. Effect of medical treatment in stroke patients with patent foramen ovale: patent foramen ovale in Cryptogenic Stroke Study. Circulation. 2002. 105(22):2625-31. [Medline].\nMajed B, Arveiler D, Bingham A, Ferrieres J, Ruidavets JB, Montaye M, et al. Depressive Symptoms, a Time-Dependent Risk Factor for Coronary Heart Disease and Stroke in Middle-Aged Men: The PRIME Study. Stroke. 2012 May 1. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Appel LJ, Brands MW, Daniels SR, Karanja N, Elmer PJ, Sacks FM. Dietary approaches to prevent and treat hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2006. 47(2):296-308. [Medline]. [Full Text].\n[Guideline] US Dept of Health and Human Services and US Dept of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Office;. 2005.\nHolmes MV, Newcombe P, Hubacek JA, et al. Effect modification by population dietary folate on the association between MTHFR genotype, homocysteine, and stroke risk: a meta-analysis of genetic studies and randomised trials. Lancet. 2011 Aug 13. 378(9791):584-94. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Report. 2008. [Full Text].\nLee CD, Folsom AR, Blair SN. Physical activity and stroke risk: a meta-analysis. Stroke. 2003. 34(10):2475-81. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Feskens EJ, et al. Physical activity and stroke. A meta-analysis of observational data. Int J Epidemiol. 2004. 33(4):787-98. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nProspective Studies Collaboration, Whitlock G, Lewington S, Sherliker P, et al. Body-mass index and cause-specific mortality in 900 000 adults: collaborative analyses of 57 prospective studies. Lancet. 2009. 373(9669):1083-96. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nFolsom AR, Prineas RJ, Kaye SA, Munger RG. Incidence of hypertension and stroke in relation to body fat distribution and other risk factors in older women. Stroke. 1990 May. 21(5):701-6. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nIsozumi K. Obesity as a risk factor for cerebrovascular disease. Keio J Med. 2004. 53(1):7-11. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSuk SH, Sacco RL, Boden-Albala B, et al. Abdominal obesity and risk of ischemic stroke: the Northern Manhattan Stroke Study. Stroke. 2003. 34(7):1586-92. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWalker SP, Rimm EB, Ascherio A, Kawachi I, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. Body size and fat distribution as predictors of stroke among US men. Am J Epidemiol. 1996. 144(12):1143-50. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nZhang Y, Tuomilehto J, Jousilahti P, Wang Y, Antikainen R, Hu G. Lifestyle Factors on the Risks of Ischemic and Hemorrhagic Stroke. Arch Intern Med. 2011 Sep 12. [Medline].\nO'Donnell MJ, Xavier D, Liu L, et al. Risk factors for ischaemic and intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke in 22 countries (the INTERSTROKE study): a case-control study. Lancet. 2010 Jul 10. 376(9735):112-23. [Medline].\nAnderson P. New AHA/ASA Guideline on Primary Stroke Prevention. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/834187. Accessed: November 10, 2014.\n[Guideline] Meschia JF, Bushnell C, Boden-Albala B, Braun LT, Bravata DM, Chaturvedi S, et al. Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Stroke: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2014 Oct 28. [Medline].\nFurlan AJ, Reisman M, Massaro J, Mauri L, Adams H, Albers GW, et al. Closure or medical therapy for cryptogenic stroke with patent foramen ovale. N Engl J Med. 2012 Mar 15. 366(11):991-9. [Medline].\n[Guideline] Furie KL, Kasner SE, Adams RJ, Albers GW, Bush RL, Fagan SC, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke. 2011 Jan. 42(1):227-76. [Medline].\nCollaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy--I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. BMJ. 1994. 308(6921):81-106. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nTijssen JG. Low-dose and high-dose acetylsalicylic acid, with and without dipyridamole: a review of clinical trial results. Neurology. 1998. 51(3 Suppl 3):S15-6. [Medline].\nHass WK, Easton JD, Adams HP Jr, et al. A randomized trial comparing ticlopidine hydrochloride with aspirin for the prevention of stroke in high-risk patients. Ticlopidine Aspirin Stroke Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1989. 321(8):501-7. [Medline].\nA randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet. 1996. 348(9038):1329-39. [Medline].\nBennett CL, Connors JM, Carwile JM, et al. Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura associated with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med. 2000. 342(24):1773-7. [Medline].\nDiener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, Sivenius J, Smets P, Lowenthal A. European Stroke Prevention Study. 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci. 1996. 143(1-2):1-13. [Medline].\nHalkes PH, van Gijn J, Kappelle LJ, Koudstaal PJ, Algra A. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006. 367(9523):1665-73. [Medline].\nRouhl RP, Lodder J. ESPRIT: is aspirin plus dipyridamole superior to aspirin alone in TIA or minor stroke patients?. Expert Rev Neurother. 2008. 8(11):1661-5. [Medline].\nAlbers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, Sacco RL, Teal P. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004. 126(3 Suppl):483S-512S. [Medline].\nDiener HC, Bogousslavsky J, Brass LM, et al. Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2004. 364(9431):331-7. [Medline].\nScirica BM, Bonaca MP, Braunwald E, De Ferrari GM, Isaza D, Lewis BS, et al. Vorapaxar for secondary prevention of thrombotic events for patients with previous myocardial infarction: a prespecified subgroup analysis of the TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 trial. Lancet. 2012 Oct 13. 380(9850):1317-24. [Medline].\nMilionis HJ, Giannopoulos S, Kosmidou M,. Statin therapy after first stroke reduces 10-year stroke recurrence and improves survival. Neurology. 2009. 72(21):1816-22. [Medline].\nPlehn JF, Davis BR, Sacks FM, et al. Reduction of stroke incidence after myocardial infarction with pravastatin: the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) study. The Care Investigators. Circulation. 1999. 99(2):216-23. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nMRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002. 360(9326):7-22. [Medline].\nAmarenco P, Bogousslavsky J, Callahan A 3rd, et al. High-dose atorvastatin after stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med. 2006. 355(6):549-59. [Medline].\nYusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, Bosch J, Davies R, Dagenais G. Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000. 342(3):145-53. [Medline].\nPROGRESS Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of a perindopril-based blood-pressure-lowering regimen among 6,105 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet. 2001. 358(9287):1033-41. [Medline].\nALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group, The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. 2002. 288(23):2981-97. [Medline].\nDahlöf B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE, et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet. 2002. 359(9311):995-1003. [Medline].\nSchrader J, Luders S, Kulschewski A, et al. Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared with Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention: principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke. 2005. 1218-26:36.\nSinger DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE, Go AS, Halperin JL, Manning WJ. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004. 126(3 Suppl):429S-456S. [Medline].\nLevine SR, Brey RL, Tilley BC, et al. Antiphospholipid antibodies and subsequent thrombo-occlusive events in patients with ischemic stroke. JAMA. 2004. 291(5):576-84. [Medline].\nCrowther MA, Ginsberg JS, Julian J, et al. A comparison of two intensities of warfarin for the prevention of recurrent thrombosis in patients with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003. 349(12):1133-8. [Medline].\nChimowitz MI, Lynn MJ, Howlett-Smith H, et al. Comparison of warfarin and aspirin for symptomatic intracranial arterial stenosis. N Engl J Med. 2005. 352(13):1305-16. [Medline].\nMohr JP, Thompson JL, Lazar RM, et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. 2001. 345(20):1444-51. [Medline].\nGranger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 15. 365(11):981-92. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nConnolly SJ, Eikelboom J, Joyner C, et al. Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Mar 3. 364(9):806-17. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nConnolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 17. 361(12):1139-51. [Medline].\nPatel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 8. 365(10):883-91. [Medline].\nGiugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28. 369(22):2093-104. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nUchino K, Hernandez AV. Dabigatran Association With Higher Risk of Acute Coronary Events: Meta-analysis of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Jan 9. [Medline].\nAnderson P. Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Cuts Stroke Rate in Half. Medscape Medical News. 2018 Jan 31. [Full Text].\nEikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017 Oct 5. 377 (14):1319-30. [Medline].\nEvolocumab (Repatha) [package insert]. One Amgen Center Drive Thousand Oaks, California 91320-1799: Amgen Inc. Dec 2017. Available at [Full Text].\nSabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC, et al, for the FOURIER Steering Committee and Investigators. Evolocumab and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017 May 4. 376 (18):1713-22. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nSzarek M, White HD, Schwartz GG, et al, for the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Committees and Investigators. Alirocumab Reduces Total Nonfatal Cardiovascular and Fatal Events: The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Feb 5. 73 (4):387-396. [Medline]. [Full Text].\nWendling P. FDA Expands Indication for PCSK9 Alirocumab (Praluent). Medscape Medical News. 2019 Apr 30. [Full Text].\nThe EC/IC Bypass Study Group. Failure of extracranial-intracranial arterial bypass to reduce the risk of ischemic stroke. Results of an international randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 1985 Nov 7. 313(19):1191-200. [Medline].\nPowers WJ, Clarke WR, Grubb RL Jr, Videen TO, Adams HP Jr, Derdeyn CP. Extracranial-intracranial bypass surgery for stroke prevention in hemodynamic cerebral ischemia: the Carotid Occlusion Surgery Study randomized trial. JAMA. 2011 Nov 9. 306(18):1983-92. [Medline].\nHughes S. Minor Infections May Increase Stroke Risk in Children. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/820589. Accessed: February 23, 2014.\nInternational Stroke Conference (ISC) 2014. Abstracts 36, 38, 39. Presented February 12, 2014.\nWhen the brain suffers an injury, such as a stroke, neurons release glutamate onto nearby neurons, which become excited and overloaded with calcium, after which they die (left). Normal neurotransmission (above) is altered during injury, causing excess calcium to activate enzymes, eventually leading to destruction of the cell. Since this process occurs via glutamate receptors, including N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, scientists believe that damage can be stopped through the use of agents that block these receptors.\nBrian Silver, MD, FRCPC, FAHA, FAAN, FANA Interim Chair, Department of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School; Director, Comprehensive Stroke Center, UMass Memorial Medical Center\nBrian Silver, MD, FRCPC, FAHA, FAAN, FANA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Neurology, American Medical Association, American Neurological Association, American Society of Neuroimaging, American Stroke Association, Massachusetts Medical Society, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada\nDisclosure: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant or trustee for: Joint Commission<br/>Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Medicolegal malpractice review, Women's Health Initiative<br/>Honoraria from Ebix; Medscape; MedLink.\nAishwarya Patil, MD Physiatrist (Rehabilitation Physician), Vice Chair, Immanuel Rehabilitation Center\nAishwarya Patil, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine, Association of Academic Physiatrists, Association of Physicians of India\nStephen Kishner, MD, MHA Professor of Clinical Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Residency Program Director, Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans\nStephen Kishner, MD, MHA is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American Association of Neuromuscular and Electrodiagnostic Medicine\nConsuelo T Lorenzo, MD Medical Director, Senior Products, Central North Region, Humana, Inc\nConsuelo T Lorenzo, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation\nEverett C Hills, MD, MS Assistant Professor of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Assistant Professor of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Penn State Milton S Hershey Medical Center and Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine\nEverett C Hills, MD, MS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Physician Executives, American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, American Medical Association, American Society of Neurorehabilitation, Association of Academic Physiatrists, and Pennsylvania Medical Society\nRichard Salcido, MD Chairman, Erdman Professor of Rehabilitation, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine\nRichard Salcido, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pain Medicine, American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, American College of Physician Executives, American Medical Association, and American Paraplegia Society\nencoded search term (Stroke Prevention) and Stroke Prevention\nVertebrobasilar Stroke\nLaryngeal Manifestations of Stroke\nGenetic and Inflammatory Mechanisms in Stroke\nMagnetic Resonance Imaging in Acute Stroke\nMotor Recovery In Stroke\nTreatment of Anemia in Patients With Renal Disease Reviewed\nCerebrovascular Accident: A Stroke of Misfortune\nAccording to Neurologists\nFDA Warns of 'Serious' Respiratory Problems With Gabapentin\nBedtime Dosing of Hypertension Meds Reduces CV Events\nNovel Over-the-Counter Device May Offer Long-Lasting Pain Relief\n'Low Value' Care? More Controversy for Statins in Primary Prevention\nAspirin Key to Expanding Access to Effective Migraine Treatment?\n2001 /viewarticle/923878 News\nNews Stroke During Pregnancy May Be on the Rise in US\nNews Too Old for New Heart? Germany Faces Dearth of Organ Donors\nNews Dual Vaping and Smoking Tied to Elevated Stroke Risk in Younger Adults\nNews RimabotulinumtoxinB Reduces Sialorrhea in Adults"

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://forums.faforever.com/\nScathis changes\nhttps://forums.faforever.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1780\nby Raevn\nThe Scathis' range has been changed from 4000 to 350, but I cannot find when then the change took place (not listed in the patch notes on the wiki).\nThis change removes the only long-range (ie. map-wide) weapon that Cybran had (non-exp. nukes are too easy to defend against at the later stages), making them unable to compete in late game against UEF (novax/mavor), Aeon (Salvation) or Seraphim (Exp. nuke). Once a faction has one of these up, they can switch to 100% defence, whereas Cybran then need to split their resources between defending against it and attacking. It's obvious that unless the opponent makes a massive mistake, there's no real coming back from that position (please don't suggest \"don't let them build it\", as that is not balancing) It is not uncommon for those experimentals to be built in the more \"friendly\" FFA games on 20x20 maps and larger.\nFurthermore, at twice the cost of a megalith, what role does the scathis now fill? It's still not going to get built on smaller maps where it is actually in range of anything, and on larger maps if you have to get that close to a base, 2 megaliths will by far be almost always better.\nI suggest reverting the range to 4000, and balancing via cost/weapon damage to make it more worthwhile.\nRe: Scathis changes\nby Ze_PilOt\nFact is, as the scathis is way cheaper than any of the unit you talked about, you have the time to gain a significant advantage earlier.\nZe_PilOt wrote: Fact is, as the scathis is way cheaper than any of the unit you talked about, you have the time to gain a significant advantage earlier.\nThat's only when considering it from a 1v1 perspective. FFA (4+ players) means it's relatively easy to get one up, with minimal impact to your economy, as the games last longer and a player can't sacrifice a large amount of his force on just one opponent. Also, you haven't explained when exactly the scathis is useful (ie. what is it's \"niche role\"?)\nraevn wrote: please don't suggest \"don't let them build it\"\nAny unit that needs this to be \"balanced\" shouldn't be in the game.\nWe don't balance the game for FFA, sorry.\nHis roles are :\n- The best navy defense in the game.\n- The best turtle breaker before you have to rely on game ender (and probably the best base breaker even at that stage as it's super cheap and so, spammable).\nby Myxir\nif you play ffa with 4 players and one seriously gets a 300k mass building up, you're probably only turtling and/or sleeping and far away from playing the game aggressive, as it should be played to win\nhaving the scathis at about 65k mass cost is a serious advantage for cybran, you can kill a base full of shields with this single unit and it's far cheaper than the other buildings\nand if you think that the limited range is a problem, why don't you start using stealthed t3 bombers to snipe someone ( 300k mass would be about 140 of them), and i want to see someone surviving a single pass of 140 strats\nRaevn wrote: Any unit that needs this to be \"balanced\" shouldn't be in the game.\nIf a game ender is not ending the game (and the his only counter is \"Don't let him build it\"), it's not a real game ender.\nIt's made to either make your opponent react, or die.\nThe scathis was NOT a real game ender (good luck to go through shields with a single one).\nZe_PilOt wrote: We don't balance the game for FFA, sorry.\nAnd there goes most of your player base.\nTo all your other points:\nShadowKnight wrote: Caution - However much you may dislike it, more defensive Ramping or Turtling strategies always have, always will, and always SHOULD be a part of all RTS games. If you go too far along certain paths which have threatened to loom in the distance of FaF's future, you will be left with the more dynamic fast-paced gameplay of T1 spam with ACU backup as the only remaining viable strategy. If this happens, by your own hand you will have killed the very purpose of FaF, which was and is to keep the game going and progressing and being played. Get rid of all but one gamestyle and you will force out a great many players.\nBecause quite frankly, you don't (or refuse to) understand how casual players play, and they are the majority.\nI don't recall Cybran needing a massive Anti-naval exp.\nOn a 20x20 map it's not hard to get a large coverage of omni, so stealth is rarely an option.\nAlso, if there's sea, you can forget using the unit offensively.\n4 player FFA can go on long enough to only scarifice a small about of resources per tick towards the experimentals. So \"Game Enders\" can, and frequently do, get built.\nOk, so instead of making minor tweaks to it's damage or accuracy you completely change the unit? Whatever happened to:\nchanges will fall under the scope of the \"5 % rule\". No change will goes beyond that range. That rule can be broken if it's really necessary and heavily tested.\nYour changes more often fall into the 50% rule. You are making drastic changes all over the place. This was not necessary, and not heavily tested (evidenced by the lack of any notification about it in the patch notes). Also, noticed how people are calling it a bug in General discussion? Why are they doing that if it's a unit that never gets built?\nRaevn wrote:\nbalancing a RTS toward FFA is ridiculous at best.\nRaevn, it's important to know that this game is not balanced for double ressource, or turtlegames like thermo and mostly not for FFA since i bet FFA is maybe 3% or less of all games\nthe balance changes focus mostly on 1v1 and also consider teamgames, which are the vast majority of all games played\nand since balance is measured by 1v1/teamgames, and there never was a purpose to build a scathis, i don't see any problems changing this unit so drastically. also the numbers aren't made up, it's the supcom1 (vanilla) numbers where the scathis was alot more useful than the FA scathis\ncybran doesn't need a high range weapon in 99% of all games since they either have a teammate who is not cybran or they can use other strategies like stealthed t3 bombers, or even build a scathis close by, maybe even 4 or 5 of them (which is about the same masscost as the previous FA scathis)\nand if you really don't like the changes, why don't you either switch to another faction which still has one of your favoured game enders or try unit packs like blackops/wyvern ?"