Objective. Pain prevalence data for patients at various stages after stroke. Design. Repeated cross-sectional, observational epidemiological study. Setting. Hospital-based multicenter study. Subjects. Four hundred forty-three prospectively enrolled stroke survivors. Methods. All patients underwent bedside clinical examination. The different types of post-stroke pain (central post-stroke pain, musculoskeletal pains, shoulder pain, spasticity-related pain, and headache) were diagnosed with widely accepted criteria during the acute, subacute, and chronic stroke stages. Differences among the three stages were analyzed with χ²-tests. Results. The mean overall prevalence of pain was 29.56% (14.06% in the acute, 42.73% in the subacute, and 31.90% in the chronic post-stroke stage). Time course differed significantly according to the various pain types (P < 0.001). The prevalence of musculoskeletal and shoulder pain was higher in the subacute and chronic than in the acute stages after stroke; the prevalence of spasticity-related pain peaked in the chronic stage. Conversely, headache manifested in the acute post-stroke stage. The prevalence of central post-stroke pain was higher in the subacute and chronic than in the acute post-stroke stage. Fewer than 25% of the patients with central post-stroke pain received drug treatment. Conclusions. Pain after stroke is more frequent in the subacute and chronic phase than in the acute phase, but it is still largely undertreated.

Background—Data on long-term risk and predictors of recurrent thrombotic events after ischemic stroke at a young age are limited. Methods and Results—We followed 1867 patients with first-ever ischemic stroke who were 18 to 45 years of age (mean age, 36.8±7.1 years; women, 49.0%), as part of the Italian Project on Stroke in Young Adults (IPSYS). Median follow-up was 40 months (25th to 75th percentile, 53). The primary end point was a composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, myocardial infarction, or other arterial events. One hundred sixty-three patients had recurrent thrombotic events (average rate, 2.26 per 100 person-years at risk). At 10 years, cumulative risk was 14.7% (95% confidence interval, 12.2%–17.9%) for primary end point, 14.0% (95% confidence interval, 11.4%–17.1%) for brain ischemia, and 0.7% (95% confidence interval, 0.4%–1.3%) for myocardial infarction or other arterial events. Familial history of stroke, migraine with aura, circulating antiphospholipid antibodies, discontinuation of antiplatelet and antihypertensive medications, and any increase of 1 traditional vascular risk factor were independent predictors of the composite end point in multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. A point-scoring system for each variable was generated by their β-coefficients, and a predictive score (IPSYS score) was calculated as the sum of the weighted scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the 0- to 5-year score was 0.66 (95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.71; mean, 10-fold internally cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.65). Conclusions—Among patients with ischemic stroke aged 18 to 45 years, the long-term risk of recurrent thrombotic events is associated with modifiable, age-specific risk factors. The IPSYS score may serve as a simple tool for risk estimation.

Although several studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of specialist Stroke Unit (SU) care of stroke patients, there is still disagreement over how these units are best organized. We sought to clarify the role of continuous monitoring of physiological parameters in acute ischemic stroke. We conducted a prospective study of 268 first-ever ischemic stroke patients admitted to our Cerebrovascular Department and allocated, according to the availability of beds, to the SU or Cerebrovascular Unit (CU). Statistical analysis compared mortality and outcome at discharge, medical and neurological complications, and length of hospitalization in the 2 care settings. Two hundred sixty-eight patients were enrolled. A good outcome at discharge, observed in 114 SU patients (85%) and 78 CU patients (58%) (odds ratio, 2.63; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.8; P<0.02), was found, on multivariate analysis, to be significantly related to type of care (SU versus CU). A significantly greater proportion of SU patients showed adverse changes in monitored parameters, which required acute medical treatment (SU: 64%; CU: 19%; P<0.0001). The mean duration of these complications was significantly shorter in the SU patients (SU: 1.0 day; CU: 2.4 days; P<0.02), and the outcome in patients experiencing complications covered by the monitoring protocol was significantly better in the SU (66%) than in the CU (35%) group (P<0.0001). Admission of acute stroke patients to a monitoring SU may positively influence their outcome at discharge. Confirmation of our findings in larger trials will indicate the need for a revision of the minimum requirements of SUs, with the addition of monitoring as a new requirement.