Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Recognition and management of transient ischaemic attack in primary care

Daniel Lasserson
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 62-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp13X661011
Daniel Lasserson
Senior Clinical Researcher and GP, University of Oxford, Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Oxford.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

GPs play a crucial role in stroke prevention. Not only do we advise our patients and offer interventions to control vascular risk factors but we are often the first port of call for patients seeking health care after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA).1 The neurologist's definition of TIA has recently changed and patients must have had a transient clinical deficit suggesting focal brain or retinal dysfunction with a ‘tissue’ criterion of normal cerebral imaging.2 This will rule out stroke, which can present clinically with transient symptoms. Urgent action is needed in primary care to ensure that stroke risk is minimised after TIA.

NICE GUIDANCE AND STROKE RISK

Patients with TIA are in an accelerated phase of stroke risk, and those at highest risk of stroke within seven days of TIA can be predicted using the ABCD2 score,3 calculated using the patients' age, blood pressure in the consultation, whether speech or weakness were present, the duration of the transient event, and the presence of diabetes. The high early risk of stroke can be reduced with urgent specialist assessment and interventions,4 and consequently NICE guidance on the management of TIA in primary care recommends using the ABCD2 score to determine the urgency of specialist referral (most TIA clinics incorporate the ABCD2 score in their referral proforma), although little guidance is given on how to recognise TIA. The only intervention recommended for primary care, pending specialist confirmation of the diagnosis, is the prescription of aspirin.5 Substantial questions therefore remain about the optimal management of TIA in primary care.

WHEN SHOULD WE SUSPECT TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK?

There is no guidance on how we should be selecting patients with TIA from the background ‘denominator’ population with transient neurological symptoms. We have no reliable methods of detecting TIA at the initial consultation in primary care, a difficulty demonstrated in TIA clinic audit figures where at least 50% of patients referred from primary care do not have TIA.6 Determining who we should suspect as having had a TIA is important as the current UK care model is based on urgent outpatient clinics, which have limited capacity.5 As the time between symptom onset and definitive intervention should be within 24 hours for patients with TIA at highest predicted stroke risk,5 delays in accessing specialist assessment should be minimal. However, this time limit for assessment is currently not met for the majority of high risk patients.7 Reducing the number of referrals of patients with conditions that mimic TIA will free up scarce clinic space for those with true TIA.

Transient neurological symptoms are common in community surveys8 and although GPs need to decide which of their patients with transient symptoms may have had a TIA, there are no prediction rules derived and validated in primary care to support accurate recognition. Although there is one specific recognition tool for TIA,9 its derivation and validation was in records of specialist assessments and requires complex calculations of nine variables; there have been no studies reported, or ongoing, testing its implementation at the first consultation in primary care.

Transient ischaemic attack clinic referral mechanisms such as proformas often specify that referrals be restricted to patients with ‘focal’ symptoms such as speech disturbance or unilateral weakness rather than ‘non-focal’ symptoms, such as confusion. However, although transient deficits in higher function such as visual neglect or apraxia are focal, they may well be interpreted as confusion by relatives and carers; a focal deficit may not always translate into a focal symptom at initial primary care presentation. Furthermore, there are many patients with transient neurological symptoms which combine both focal and non-focal features at the same time.8 The rigid application of ‘focal’ symptoms in referral decision making may well lead to under-detection of true TIA in the community and is another example of how the protean presentations seen in general practice do not map discretely to specialist designed assessment pathways.

IS STROKE THE ONLY RISK AFTER TRANSIENT NEUROLOGICAL SYMPTOMS?

Researchers in the Dutch TIA trial, examining the effect of different aspirin doses on stroke risk after TIA, noticed that patients with ‘atypical’ TIA (for example including confusion and other non-focal symptoms) had a higher cardiac event risk than patients with classical TIA (that is, with focal symptoms such as unilateral weakness).10 Furthermore, follow up of patients referred to TIA clinics shows that those ‘reassured’ that they have not had a TIA are in fact at higher risk of cardiac events and death than a population of patients attending hospital clinics matched for cardiovascular risk factors but who have not had an episode of transient neurological symptoms.6 A community-based cohort study also found that patients with transient neurological symptoms that were again atypical for TIA (they had mixed focal and non-focal symptoms) had a higher risk of cardiovascular death, cardiac disease, and dementia than patients with purely focal transient neurological events that are more typical for TIA.8

Therefore, within the population of patients with transient neurological symptoms, there appear to be patients at high stroke risk and other patients at high cardiac risk and the latter may not be best served by systems that only seek to identify and treat the patients at high stroke risk. Given the substantial non-stroke vascular disease burden in patients who have had transient neurological symptoms that are not sufficiently ‘focal’ to warrant a TIA diagnosis, the approach of the generalist should include a full vascular risk factor assessment, rather than reassurance that their event ‘was not a TIA’. Ultimately, better recognition of these different patient populations should come from prediction rules, but there is often a reduction in the usefulness of prediction rules that have been derived and validated in specialist settings when they are translated to the generalist community setting.11 Prediction rules are needed that are derived and validated in primary care.

IMPLEMENTING THE EVIDENCE FOR URGENT RISK FACTOR CONTROL

Even if we can develop more appropriate selection of patients for urgent clinics whose specific aim is to reduce stroke risk, the current NICE guidance recommends only prescribing aspirin at the initial primary care consultation,5 and patients need to wait until a specialist assessment for full vascular risk reducing medication; the majority of patients with TIA do not have critical carotid stenosis and are managed medically.4 Although there is strong evidence that urgent risk factor control in patients with a confirmed diagnosis of TIA prevents stroke,4 we do not know the net benefit of prescribing such intensive treatment regimens at an initial consultation in primary care to the larger population of patients with suspected TIA. Currently the harms and benefits of prescribing these familiar treatments (antiplatelet combinations, antihypertensive agents, and statins) in advance of a subsequent specialist assessment have not been quantified. NICE has not considered this option in its decision model of care pathways or included it in research recommendations.5

CONCLUSION

Reducing the burden of cerebrovascular disease needs primary care, but primary care in turn needs to sharpen its detection of the patient at risk and ensure that maximal protection from evidence-based therapies is initiated as soon as possible. We also need to recognise that in our pursuit of the patient with accelerated risk of stroke, we also capture patients at risk of cardiac disease. The evidence gaps of who we detect, and when we protect, remain to be closed.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The author has declared no competing interests.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2013

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lasserson DS,
    2. Chandratheva A,
    3. Giles MF,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Influence of general practice opening hours on delay in seeking medical attention after transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and minor stroke: prospective population based study. BMJ 337:a1569.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Easton JD,
    2. Saver JL,
    3. Albers GW,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Definition and evaluation of transient ischemic attack: a scientific statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; and the Interdisciplinary Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this statement as an educational tool for neurologists. Stroke 40(6):2276–2293.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Johnston SC,
    2. Rothwell PM,
    3. Nguyen-Huynh MN,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Validation and refinement of scores to predict very early stroke risk after transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 369(9558):283–292.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Rothwell PM,
    2. Giles MF,
    3. Chandratheva A,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Effect of urgent treatment of transient ischaemic attack and minor stroke on early recurrent stroke (EXPRESS study): a prospective population-based sequential comparison. Lancet 370(9596):1432–1442.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Chronic Conditions
    (2008) Stroke: national clinical guideline for diagnosis and initial management of acute stroke and transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (Royal College of Physicians, London).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cameron AC,
    2. Dawson J,
    3. Quinn TJ,
    4. et al.
    (2011) Long-term outcome following attendance at a transient ischemic attack clinic. Int J Stroke 6(4):306–311.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party
    (2010) National sentinel stroke audit (Royal College of Physicians, London).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Bos MJ,
    2. van Rijn MJ,
    3. Witteman JC,
    4. et al.
    (2007) Incidence and prognosis of transient neurological attacks. JAMA 298(24):2877–2885.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Dawson J,
    2. Lamb KE,
    3. Quinn TJ,
    4. et al.
    (2009) A recognition tool for transient ischaemic attack. QJM 102(1):43–49.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Koudstaal PJ,
    2. Algra A,
    3. Pop GA,
    4. et al.
    (1992) Risk of cardiac events in atypical transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. The Dutch TIA Study Group. Lancet 340(8820):630–633.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Moons KG,
    2. Altman DG,
    3. Vergouwe Y,
    4. Royston P
    (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: application and impact of prognostic models in clinical practice. BMJ 338:b606.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 63 (607)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 63, Issue 607
February 2013
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Recognition and management of transient ischaemic attack in primary care
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Recognition and management of transient ischaemic attack in primary care
Daniel Lasserson
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 62-63. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X661011

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Recognition and management of transient ischaemic attack in primary care
Daniel Lasserson
British Journal of General Practice 2013; 63 (607): 62-63. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp13X661011
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • NICE GUIDANCE AND STROKE RISK
    • WHEN SHOULD WE SUSPECT TRANSIENT ISCHAEMIC ATTACK?
    • IS STROKE THE ONLY RISK AFTER TRANSIENT NEUROLOGICAL SYMPTOMS?
    • IMPLEMENTING THE EVIDENCE FOR URGENT RISK FACTOR CONTROL
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Continuity of GP care: using personal lists in general practice
  • Creating space for gut feelings in the diagnosis of cancer in primary care
  • GP workforce crisis: what can we do now?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242