Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2004;328:897 (10 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7444.897
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORAlthough I agree with Ray et al that increased public recognition of stroke is necessary, it is salutary that 50% of UK stroke patients already reach hospital within six hours: thereafter, institutional barriers delay investigation and treatment.1 Although logical, acute institution of secondary preventive treatments has not been tested specifically in trials, but if beneficial, the present outpatient referral-based assessment of transient ischaemic attack must be re-evaluated, including anachronistic discrimination based on symptom duration.
Duerden may be correct that blood pressure lowering, rather than specific agents, and indapamide rather than perindopril were responsible for benefit in PROGRESS: both issues were discussed. Chemically, indapamide is a sulfonamide, not a thiazide, and differs with respect to metabolic profile, and possibly regression of left ventricular hypertrophy.2
3 Perindopril seems not to reduce global cerebral blood flow in stroke patients with carotid stenosis,4 and data are lacking for other agents. Whether these differences
Keith W Muir, senior lecturer in neurology
University of Glasgow, Division of Clinical Neurosciences, Institute of Neurological Sciences, Southern General Hospital, Glasgow G51 4TF k.muir{at}clinmed.gla.ac.uk