Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Advances in Primary Stroke Prevention

2006; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 37; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/01.str.0000200456.43415.11

1524-4628

Larry B. Goldstein, Graeme J. Hankey,

Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies

HomeStrokeVol. 37, No. 2Advances in Primary Stroke Prevention Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAdvances in Primary Stroke Prevention Larry B. Goldstein and Graeme J. Hankey Larry B. GoldsteinLarry B. Goldstein From the Department of Medicine (Neurology), Duke Center for Cerebrovascular Disease, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC (L.B.G.); and the Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia (G.J.H.). and Graeme J. HankeyGraeme J. Hankey From the Department of Medicine (Neurology), Duke Center for Cerebrovascular Disease, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research, Duke University and Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC (L.B.G.); and the Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Australia, School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia (G.J.H.). Originally published12 Jan 2006https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000200456.43415.11Stroke. 2006;37:317–319Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 12, 2006: Previous Version 1 Because ≈75% of strokes are first-ever strokes,1 it is likely that effective prevention in persons with established risk factors who have not had a stroke (ie, primary prevention) can have as great or a greater impact on reducing the burden of the disease as effective prevention of recurrent stroke. The cost associated with inadequate primary prevention is at least as great as that resulting from inadequate secondary prevention.2 There were several important studies published over the last year providing new data addressing primary stroke prevention.Blood Pressure–LoweringLowering systolic blood pressure by 10 mm Hg is associated with a reduction in the risk of stroke by about one third, irrespective of baseline blood pressure (BP) levels.3 It remains uncertain whether long-acting dihydropridine calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARBs) are more effective than other classes of antihypertensive drugs, and whether the very elderly benefit from treatment.The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) randomly allocated 19 257 individuals aged 40 to 79 years with hypertension and at least 3 other cardiovascular risk factors to an amlopidine-based (amlodipine 5 to 10 mg adding perindopril 4 to 8 mg as required) as compared with an atenolol-based drug regimen (atenolol 50 to 100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1.25 to 2.5 mg and potassium as required).4 After 5.5 years median follow-up, the amlopidine-based regimen was associated with lower rates of stroke (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.89), coronary events (HR=0.86, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.96) and new-onset diabetes (HR=0.70, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.78). The CCB-angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor regimen may be associated with a greater reduction in pulse pressure and better patient compliance (ie, fewer adverse effects),5,6 but stroke reduction was at least partially attributable to lower BPs among patients randomized to the amlodipine-based regimen (mean difference: 2.7/1.9 mm Hg).7Although not a primary prevention study, the MOrbidity and mortality after Stroke, Eprosartan compared with nitrendipine for Secondary prevention (MOSES) trial randomly assigned 1405 patients to treatment with an ARB (eprosartan) or a CCB (nitrendipine).8 There was a reduction in cerebrovascular events (incidence density ratio: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.97) among those treated with the ARB during 2.5 years (mean) follow-up with no significant difference in BP between the 2 groups. Caveats of the MOSES trial are that it was a pilot study, treatment allocation was not masked, 53 patients were excluded from the analyses because they withdrew consent after randomization, and the analysis was based on the number of outcome events, which could include double counting of patients, rather than an actuarial analysis of time to first event (with censoring).The benefits of lowering BP in the very elderly are supported by the results of the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) that randomly assigned 4964 patients aged 70 to 89 years with mild to moderate hypertension to double-blind treatment with candesartan 8 to 16 mg daily or placebo.9–11 Open-label antihypertensive therapy (mostly thiazide diuretics) was added as needed to control the BP. Assignment to candesartan was associated with a 27.8% (95% CI: 1.3% to 47.2%) relative risk reduction of nonfatal strokes, and a nonsignificant reduction of all strokes (relative risk reduction=23.6%, 95% CI: −0.7% to 42.1%) as compared with placebo.9 This was achieved with a lower mean BP (mean difference: 3.2/1.6 mm Hg) in the active treatment group. The results were consistent among different subgroups with the exception of those with isolated systolic hypertension10 and a previous stroke,11 for whom the benefit appeared greater.Taken together, these studies suggest that there may be marginal cerebrovascular benefits for regimens that include an ARB and CCB, but the available data are not definitive. Hypertension should be treated in the very elderly to reduce their risk of nonfatal stroke.Antithrombotic Therapy for Atrial FibrillationPatients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are commonly prescribed both an anticoagulant (to reduce the risk of cardiogenic ischemic stroke) and antiplatelet therapy (to reduce the risk of atherothrombotic ischemic coronary events or stroke). The National Study for Prevention of Embolism in Atrial Fibrillation (NASPEAF) trial randomly assigned 714 intermediate risk AF patients to receive antiplatelet therapy (triflusal 600 mg/day; n=242), anticoagulation (acenocumarol, international normalized ratio [INR] range 2 to 3; n=237) or combination therapy (triflusal 600 mg/d+acenocumarol, INR 1.25 to 2.00; n=235).12 After 2.7 years (median) follow-up, the primary outcome of stroke, systemic embolism or vascular death was lower among patients assigned combination therapy (0.92%) as compared with triflusal (3.8%) or anticoagulation (2.7%) alone (HR=0.33, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.91; P=0.02). There was no excess of severe bleeding with combination therapy (0.92% versus 1.80% with anticoagulation and 0.35% with antiplatelet therapy alone). The primary outcome plus severe bleeding was lower with combination therapy (1.48% versus 3.78% with anticoagulation and 3.82% with antiplatelet therapy; P 3 times the upper limit of normal; 0.8% versus 6.0%; P<0.001). Abnormal liver function tests typically occurred within 6 months and declined, whether or not ximelagatran was continued, but 1 patient had fatal liver disease and another suggestive case occurred. Despite the similar efficacy of ximelagatran as compared with warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation, concerns remain about potential long-term risks of hepatic toxicity and difficulty identifying which patients may be at risk.15Lipid-Lowering TherapySupporting an earlier meta-analysis (primarily in those with CHD or major CHD risk) that demonstrated a reduction in stroke with statin treatment (odds ratio [OR]=0.79, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.85 with reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) explaining 33% to 80% of the benefit),16 a new meta-analysis revealed a 12% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL-C (RR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.84 to 0.91; P<0.0001).17 There was a 21% reduction in the rate of major vascular events (RR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.81; P<0.0001) including a 17% reduction in fatal and nonfatal stroke (RR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.78 to 0.88; P<0.0001).The Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial prospectively randomized 10 001 patients with stable CHD and an LDL-C <130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L) to double-blind treatment with either 10 mg or 80 mg of atorvastatin daily to assess the efficacy and safety of lowering LDL-C to <100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L).18 Subjects were followed for a median of 4.9 years for a primary end point of the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event (CHD death, nonfatal nonprocedure–related MI, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or fatal or nonfatal stroke). High-dose atorvastatin lowered LDL-C to a mean of 77 mg/dL (2.0 mmol.L) versus 101 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) with low-dose atorvastatin. High-dose treatment was associated with a reduction in the primary event rate from 10.9% to 8.7% (HR=0.78, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89; P<0.001). This included reductions in cerebrovascular events (HR=0.77, 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.93; P=0.007), major coronary events (HR=0.80, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.92; P=0.002), any coronary event (HR=0.79, 95% CI: 0.73 to 0.86; P<0.001), and any cardiovascular event (HR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.87; P<0.001), but no reduction in mortality (HR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.85 to 1.19; P=0.92). Persistent elevations in liver aminotransferase levels were more frequent in the high-dose group (1.2% versus 0.2%; P<0.001). Consistent with the meta-analyses, the TNT study shows greater reductions in stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with stable CHD treated to a target LDL-C below 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L), but with a greater risk of hepatic toxicity.Aspirin for Primary Stroke Prevention in WomenThe Women's Health Study (WHS) randomized 39 876 initially asymptomatic women ≥45 years of age to receive 100 mg of aspirin on alternate days or placebo.19 The women were followed for 10 years for the occurrence of a first major vascular event (nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke or cardiovascular death). The study was negative for the primary end point (RR=0.91, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.03; P=0.13). However, treatment was associated with an overall reduction in stroke (RR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.99; P=0.04) including a 24% reduction in ischemic stroke (RR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.93; P=0.009), and a nonsignificant increase in hemorrhagic stroke (RR=1.24, 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.87; P=0.31). The stroke rates were 0.11% per year in aspirin-treated and 0.13% per year in placebo-treated women (absolute RR=0.02% per year, number needed to treat=5000). Even this low dose of aspirin was associated with an increased risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage requiring transfusion (RR=1.40, 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.83; P=0.02). The risk of major cardiovascular events was reduced among women ≥65 years of age at study entry (RR=0.74, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.92; P=0.008), but without a reduction in the overall risk of stroke (RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.08; P=0.13). Other subgroup analyses showed a reduction in stroke for those women with a history of hypertension (RR=0.76, 95% CI: 0.59 to 0.98; P=0.04), hyperlipidemia (RR=0.62, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.83; P=0.001), diabetes (RR=0.46, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.85; P=0.01), or having a 10-year cardiovascular risk ≥10% (RR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.98; P=0.04). The study supports the use of aspirin in women over age 65 and those who are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events.Hormone Replacement TherapyObservational studies suggested a protective effect of estrogens on cardiovascular risk among women receiving postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy.20 A meta-analysis identified 28 relevant randomized trials with 39 769 subjects addressing this question.21 Hormone replacement therapy–use was associated with increases in total stroke (OR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.13 to 1.47), nonfatal stroke (OR=1.23, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.44), fatal or disabling stroke (OR=1.56, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.20), ischemic stroke (OR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.56), with a trend toward more fatal strokes (OR=1.28, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.88) and no increase in hemorrhagic stroke (OR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.75). Hormone replacement therapy cannot be recommended for the primary stroke prevention and likely increases risk.This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health, Veterans Administration (L.B.G.) and by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (G.J.H.), and the National Heart Foundation, Australia (G.J.H). The authors have activities that could be perceived as conflicts of interest: L.B.G is a consultant for Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer-Parke-Davis, and Astra Zenica, and a speaker for Bayer, Pfizer-Parke-Davis. G.J.H. is a consultant for Astra Zeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Pfizer, Steering Committee, AMADEUS trial; a member of the outcome adjudication committee: ACTIVE trial; as well as a speaker for Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myer Squibb, Pfizer.FootnotesCorrespondence to Larry B. Goldstein, MD, Box 3651, Duke Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710. E-mail [email protected] References 1 American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics - 2005 Update. American Heart Association, Dallas 2004; 16–20.Google Scholar2 Qureshi AI, Suri MFK, Kirmani JF, Divani AA. The relative impact of inadequate primary and secondary prevention on cardiovascular mortality in the United States. Stroke. 2004; 35: 2346–2350.LinkGoogle Scholar3 Lawes CMM, Bennett DA, Feigin VL, Rodgers A. Blood pressure and stroke. An overview of published reviews. Stroke. 2004;35:776–785.Google Scholar4 Dahlof B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, Wedel H, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Collins R, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O'Brien E, Ostergren J. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 366: 895–906.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5 Verdecchia P, Reboldi G, Angeli F, Gattobigio R, Bentivoglio M, Thijs L, Staessen JA, Porcellati C. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers for coronary heart disease and stroke prevention. Hypertension. 2005; 46: 386–392.LinkGoogle Scholar6 Staessen JA, Birkenhager WH. Evidence that new antihypertensives are superior to older drugs. Lancet. 2005; 366: 869–871.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar7 Poulter NR, Wedel H, Dahlof B, Sever PS, Beevers DG, Caulfield M, Kjeldsen SE, Kristinsson A, McInnes GT, Mehlsen J, Nieminen M, O'Brien E, Ostergren J, Pocock S. Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA). Lancet. 2005; 366: 907–913.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar8 Schrader J, Luders S, Kulschewski A, Hammersen F, Plate K, Berger JB, Zidek W, Dominiak P, Diener HC. Morbidity and mortality after stroke, eprosartan compared with nitrendipine for secondary prevention. Principal results of a prospective randomized controlled study (MOSES). Stroke. 2005; 36: 1218–1226.LinkGoogle Scholar9 Skoog I, Lithell H, Hansson L, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Olofsson B, Trenkwalder P, Zanchetti A. Effect of baseline cognitive function and antihypertensive treatment on cognitive and cardiovascular outcomes: Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). Am J Hypertens. 1052; 18: 1052–1059.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10 Papademetriou V, Farsang C, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Lithell H, Olofsson B, Skoog I, Trenkwalder P, Zanchetti A. Stroke prevention with the angiotensin II type 1-receptor blocker candesartan in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension: the Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1175–1180.MedlineGoogle Scholar11 Trenkwalder P, Elmfeldt D, Hofman A, Lithell H, Olofsson B, Papademetriou V, Skoog I, Zanchetti A. The Study on COgnition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE) - major CV events and stroke in subgroups of patients. Blood Pressure. 2005; 14: 31–37.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12 Perez-Gomez F, Alegria E, Berjon J, Iriarte JA, Zumalde J, Salvador A, Mataix L. Comparative effects of antiplatelet, anticoagulant, or combined therapy in patients with valvular and nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44: 1557–1566.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar13 Tsiskaridze A, Devuyst G, De Freitas GR, Van Melle G, Bogousslavsky J. Stroke with internal carotid artery stenosis. Arch Neurol. 2001; 58: 605–609.MedlineGoogle Scholar14 Albers GW, Diener HC, Frison L, Grind M, Nevinson M, Partridge S, Halperin JL, Horrow J, Olsson SB, Petersen P, Vahanian A. Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2005; 293: 690–698.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15 Lee WM, Larrey D, Olsson R, Lewis JH, Keisu M, Auclert L, Sheth S. Hepatic findings in long-term clinical trials of ximelagatran. Drug Safety. 2005; 28: 351–370.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar16 Amarenco P, Labreuche J, Lavallee P, Touboul PJ. Statins in stroke prevention and carotid atherosclerosis. Systematic review and up-to-date meta-analysis. Stroke. 2004; 35: 2902–2909.LinkGoogle Scholar17 Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005; 366: 1267–1278.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18 LaRosa JC, Grundy SM, Waters DD, Shear C, Barter P, Fruchart JC, Gotto AM, Greten H, Kastelein JJ, Shepherd J, Wenger NK. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 1425–1435.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar19 Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee I-M, Gordon D, Gaziano JM, Manson JE, Hennekens CH, Buring JE. A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2005; 352: 1293–1304.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20 Mendelsohn ME, Karas RH. The protective effects of estrogen on the cardiovascular system. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340: 1801–1811.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar21 Bath PMW, Gray LJ. Association between hormone replacement therapy and subsequent stroke: a meta-analysis. BMJ. 2005; 330: 342–345.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar eLetters(0)eLetters should relate to an article recently published in the journal and are not a forum for providing unpublished data. Comments are reviewed for appropriate use of tone and language. Comments are not peer-reviewed. Acceptable comments are posted to the journal website only. Comments are not published in an issue and are not indexed in PubMed. Comments should be no longer than 500 words and will only be posted online. References are limited to 10. Authors of the article cited in the comment will be invited to reply, as appropriate.Comments and feedback on AHA/ASA Scientific Statements and Guidelines should be directed to the AHA/ASA Manuscript Oversight Committee via its Correspondence page.Sign In to Submit a Response to This Article Previous Back to top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited By Ouriques Martins S, Sacks C, Hacke W, Brainin M, de Assis Figueiredo F, Marques Pontes-Neto O, Lavados Germain P, Marinho M, Hoppe Wiegering A, Vaca McGhie D, Cruz-Flores S, Ameriso S, Camargo Villareal W, Durán J, Fogolin Passos J, Gomes Nogueira R, Freitas de Carvalho J, Sampaio Silva G, Cabral Moro C, Oliveira-Filho J, Gagliardi R, Gomes de Sousa E, Fagundes Soares F, de Pinho Campos K, Piza Teixeira P, Gonçalves I, Santos Carquin I, Muñoz Collazos M, Pérez Romero G, Maldonado Figueredo J, Barboza M, Celis López M, Góngora-Rivera F, Cantú-Brito C, Novarro-Escudero N, Velázquez Blanco M, Arbo Oze de Morvil C, Olmedo Bareiro A, Meza Rojas G, Flores A, Hancco-Saavedra J, Pérez Jimenez V, Abanto Argomedo C, Rodriguez Kadota L, Crosa R, Mora Cuervo D, de Souza A, Carbonera L, Álvarez Guzmán T, Maldonado N, Cabral N, Anderson C, Lindsay P, Hennis A and Feigin V (2019) Priorities to reduce the burden of stroke in Latin American countries, The Lancet Neurology, 10.1016/S1474-4422(19)30068-7, 18:7, (674-683), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2019. Osovska N, Mazur Y, Bereziuk O, Dmytryshyn S, Velychkovych M, Perebetiuk L, Temna O, Honcharenko O, Furman O and Balatskyi O (2019) CARDIOVASCULAR REMODELING IN PATIENTS WITH HYPERTENSION WITH DIFFERENT DEGREES OF COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT, Wiadomości Lekarskie, 10.36740/WLek201904132, 72:4, (670-676), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2019. (2018) Risk Factors Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke, 10.1017/9781316161609.003, (17-34) Wang Z, Li Y, Huang L, Guan Q, Xu D, Zhou W and Zhang X (2012) Helicobacter pylori infection contributes to high risk of ischemic stroke: evidence from a meta-analysis, Journal of Neurology, 10.1007/s00415-012-6558-7, 259:12, (2527-2537), Online publication date: 1-Dec-2012. Vigili de Kreutzenberg S, Tiengo A and Avogaro A (2009) Cerebrovascular disease in diabetes mellitus: The role of carotid intima-media thickness, Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 10.1016/j.numecd.2009.03.014, 19:9, (667-673), Online publication date: 1-Nov-2009. Goldstein L and Rothwell P (2009) Advances in Primary Prevention and Health Services Delivery, Stroke, 40:5, (e295-e297), Online publication date: 1-May-2009. Saleem S, Shah Z, Urade Y and Doré S (2009) Lipocalin-prostaglandin D synthase is a critical beneficial factor in transient and permanent focal cerebral ischemia, Neuroscience, 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2009.02.039, 160:1, (248-254), Online publication date: 1-Apr-2009. Chao C, Wang T, Chong C, Lin Y, Chen C, Tang G and Yen D (2009) Prognostic Value of QT Parameters in Patients with Acute Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Prospective Evaluation with Respect to Mortality and Post-hospitalization Bed Confinement, Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, 10.1016/S1726-4901(09)70037-1, 72:3, (124-132), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2009. (2009) Risk factors Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke, 10.1017/CBO9780511575815.003, (16-29) (2009) Epidemiology, risk factors, pathophysiology and causes of transient ischemic attacks and stroke Transient Ischemic Attack and Stroke, 10.1017/CBO9780511575815.002, (1-100) McAllister T and Arnsten A (2008) Pharmacologic approaches to cognitive rehabilitation Cognitive Neurorehabilitation, 10.1017/CBO9781316529898.022, (298-320) Domingues-Montanari S, Mendioroz M, del Rio-Espinola A, Fernández-Cadenas I and Montaner J (2014) Genetics of stroke: a review of recent advances, Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics, 10.1586/14737159.8.4.495, 8:4, (495-513), Online publication date: 1-Jul-2008. Stabile E, Sorropago G, Tesorio T, Salemme L, Ambrosini V, Cioppa A, Popusoi G, Nammas W, Biamino G and Rubino P (2008) Use of endovascular clamping as neuroprotection during carotid stenting in the presence of a critical ipsilateral stenosis of the external carotid artery, EuroIntervention, 10.4244/EIJV3I5A106, 3:5, (588-592), Online publication date: 1-Mar-2008. L??ders S (2007) Drug Therapy for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke in Hypertensive Patients, Drugs, 10.2165/00003495-200767070-00001, 67:7, (955-963), . Zarowitz B (2007) Warfarin: A Higher "High-Risk" Medication?, Geriatric Nursing, 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2006.11.004, 28:1, (17-24), Online publication date: 1-Jan-2007. February 2006Vol 37, Issue 2 Advertisement Article InformationMetrics https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000200456.43415.11PMID: 16410475 Manuscript receivedOctober 31, 2005Manuscript acceptedDecember 8, 2005Originally publishedJanuary 12, 2006 Keywordshypertensionhormone replacement therapyatrial fibrillationstrokestatinsaspirinprevention & controlPDF download Advertisement