Risk-Adapted Atrial Fibrillation Monitoring after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: A Population-Based Study
Elbischger, J.; Krainer, A.; Ruprechter, T.; Haidegger, M.; Berger, N.; Hatab, I.; Fandler-Höfler, S.; Heine, M.; Jagiello, J.; Koller, H.; Lilek, S.; Veeranki, S. P. K.; Enzinger, C.; Manninger, M.; Bisping, E.; Scherr, D.; Gattringer, T.; Kneihsl, M.
Show abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation detected after stroke (AFDAS) is frequently diagnosed after embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) and has important implications for secondary stroke prevention. Although prediction scores have been proposed to identify patients at increased risk of AFDAS, prospective evidence supporting their implementation to guide rhythm monitoring in routine clinical practice is limited. Methods: In this prospective, population-based implementation cohort study, adults with ESUS were enrolled between January 2022 and December 2024 across all stroke centers in Styria, Austria. The Graz AF Risk Score was prospectively implemented as part of a risk-adapted diagnostic pathway for cardiac rhythm monitoring. Patients with a score [≥]4 were recommended for implantable loop recorder monitoring, whereas monitoring in those with scores <4 remained at the treating physician's discretion. The primary outcome was AFDAS detection; recurrent ischemic stroke and recurrent stroke etiology were secondary outcomes. Results: Among 784 patients (median age 73 years [IQR 64-80], 45.7% women), AFDAS was detected in 166 patients (21.2%) during a median follow-up of 26.3 months (IQR 20-34). AFDAS detection was substantially higher in patients with a Graz AF Risk Score [≥]4 than <4 (38.1% vs. 3.9%; p<0.001). After adjustment for age, sex and ILR monitoring, a score [≥]4 independently predicted AFDAS (HR 6.3, 95% CI 3.5-11.2; p<0.001) and recurrent ischemic stroke (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.1-4.1; p=0.023). Only one recurrent stroke in patients with a score <4 was attributable to atrial fibrillation (AF) (1/18, 5.6%). Conclusions: Prospective implementation of the Graz AF Risk Score identified patients with ESUS at markedly different risks of AFDAS. A Graz AF Risk Score [≥]4 was also independently associated with recurrent ischemic stroke. These findings support a risk-adapted approach to cardiac rhythm monitoring after ESUS.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Right Ventricular Dysfunction: An Overlooked Predictor of Sudden Cardiac Death and Arrhythmic Events -- A Meta-Analysis 94%
- Endurance exercise remodels pulmonary vein sleeve myocytes and promotes a proarrhythmic atrial substrate 92%
- Artificial Intelligence Methods to Detect Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (AIM-HFpEF) within Electronic Health Records: An equitable disease prediction model 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Sex and racial differences in cardiovascular disease risk in patients with atrial fibrillation 94%
- The Transcriptional Landscape of Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 92%
- Predicting factors for long-term survival in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest - a propensity score-matched analysis 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biomarker panels for improved risk prediction and enhanced biological insights in patients with atrial fibrillation 93%
- Automated Multilabel Diagnosis on Electrocardiographic Images and Signals 92%
- Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist in Large Vessel Occlusion Treated by Reperfusion Therapy: A Phase 2 Randomized Trial 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Early and long-term risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation after transient ischemic attack 96%
- Is Catheter Ablation Associated with Preservation of Cognitive Function? An Analysis From the SAGE-AF Observational Cohort Study 94%
- Smoking does not alter treatment effect of intravenous thrombolysis in mild to moderate acute ischemic stroke; a Dutch String-of-Pearls Institute (PSI) Stroke Study 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.