Stroke Is Not an Accident: An Integrative Review on the Use of the Term Cerebrovascular Accident

Cerebrovascular accident (CVA) is an outdated term for describing stroke as it implies stroke is an accident. We conducted an integrative review to examine the use of CVA in terms of (1) frequency in major medical journals over time; (2) associated publication characteristics (e.g., number of authors, senior author country, topic); and (3) frequency in medical records.

We searched Google Scholar for publications in leading neurology and vascular journals (Quartile 1) across two 5-year periods (1998-2002 and 2018-2022) using the terms "cerebrovascular accident" or "CVA." Two reviewers independently reviewed full-text publications and recorded the frequency of CVA use. Rates of use (per 1,000 articles/year) were calculated for each journal and time period. Associations of publication characteristics with CVA use were determined using multivariable logistic regression models. In addition, admission and discharge forms in the Auckland Regional Community Stroke Study (ARCOS V) were audited for frequency of use of the term CVA.

Of the 1,643 publications retrieved, 1,539 were reviewed in full. Of these, CVA was used ≥1 time in 676 publications, and ≥2 times in 276 publications (129 in 1998-2002; 147 in 2018-2022). The terms CVA and stroke both appeared in 57% of publications where CVA was used ≥2 times in 1998-2002, compared to 65% in 2018-2022. Majority of publications were on the topic of stroke (22% in 1998-2002; 20% in 2018-2022). There were no associations between publication characteristics and the use of CVA. The highest rate of CVA use in 2018-2022 was in Circulation, which had increased over time from 1.3 uses per 1,000 publications in 1998-2002 to 1.8 uses per 1,000 publications in 2018-2022. The largest reduction in the use of CVA was in Neuroepidemiology (2.0 uses per 1,000 publications in 1998-2002 to 0 uses in 2018-2022). The term CVA was identified in 0.2% (17/7,808) of stroke admission and discharge forms audited.

We found evidence of changes in the use of CVA in the scientific literature over the past two decades. Editors, authors, and clinicians should avoid the use of the term CVA as it perpetuates the use of an ambiguous and inappropriate term.