Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on October 22, 2009

Stroke. 2009
Published online before print October 22, 2009, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.563056
A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2009
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/12/3711    most recent
STROKEAHA.109.563056v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by King, A.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by King, A.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Carotid Stenosis
Right arrow Embolic stroke
Right arrow Doppler ultrasound, Transcranial Doppler etc.
Right arrow Risk Factors for Stroke

Submitted on July 16, 2009
Revised on August 12, 2009
Accepted on August 25, 2009

Doppler Embolic Signals in Cerebrovascular Disease and Prediction of Stroke Risk. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Alice King BSc (Hons) and Hugh S. Markus DM, FRCP*

From Clinical Neuroscience, St. George's University of London, London UK.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: hmarkus{at}sgul.ac.uk.

Background and Purpose—Asymptomatic embolic signals (ES) detected using transcranial Doppler have been reported in patients with potential cerebral embolic sources. They may be useful in risk stratification and in assessing therapies. First, it is essential to show whether they predict stroke risk.

Methods—A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the prognostic value of ES in different potential cerebral embolic sources. Studies were identified that used transcranial Doppler to detect ES and included prospective stroke/TIA follow-up. Numbers of ES-positive and ES-negative patients were extracted with stroke/TIA and stroke alone outcomes.

Results—ES are most frequent in large artery disease, less frequent in cardioembolic stroke, and infrequent in lacunar stroke. Data relating ES to future stroke risk were available for acute stroke, large artery disease, and the perioperative period of carotid endarterectomy. For symptomatic carotid stenosis, ES predicted stroke alone (OR, 9.57; 95%CI, 1.54 to 59.38; P=0.02) and stroke/TIA (OR, 6.36; 95% CI, 2.90–13.96; P<0.00001). For asymptomatic carotid stenosis, ES predicted stroke alone (OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 2.24–24.89; P=0.001) and stroke/TIA (OR, 12.00; 95% CI, 2.43–59.34; P=0.002) but with heterogeneity (P=0.004). In acute stroke ES predicted stroke alone (OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.17–5.08; P=0.02) and stroke/TIA (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.64–8.38; P=0.002). A high frequency of ES immediately after carotid endarterectomy predicted stroke alone (OR, 24.54; 95% CI, 7.88–76.43; P<0.00001) and stroke/TIA (OR, 32.04; 95% CI, 11.36–90.39; P<0.00001).

Conclusion—ES predict stroke risk in acute stroke, symptomatic carotid stenosis, and postoperatively after carotid endarterectomy; in asymptomatic carotid stenosis, data are less robust. In these conditions ES may be useful in risk stratification and in assessing therapeutic efficacy. For other embolic sources, further prospective data are required.


Key words: carotid stenosis • cerebrovascular disease • embolism • ultrasound