Embolic stroke of undetermined source was associated with >7 times the odds of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities compared to noncardioembolic stroke (P=0.001).
Cohort (n=2,536)
Yes
What echocardiographic and clinical factors are associated with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) compared to other stroke subtypes in a Southeast Asian and Eastern Mediterranean cohort?
In Southeast Asian and Eastern Mediterranean patients, ESUS is strongly associated with echocardiographic abnormalities including left ventricular wall motion abnormalities and diastolic dysfunction.
Effect estimate: OR >7
p-value: p=0.001
Background Cardiac features diverge in Asians; however, it is not known how these differences relate to embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS) in Southeast Asian and Eastern Mediterranean regions. Methods and Results A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected acute ischemic stroke data from 2014 to 2018 was performed. Stroke subtypes were noncardioembolic stroke (large‐vessel and small‐vessel disease; n=1348), cardioembolic stroke (n=532), and ESUS (n=656). Subtypes were compared by demographic, clinical, and echocardiographic factors. In multivariate logistic regression, patients with ESUS in comparison with noncardioembolic stroke were twice as likely to have left ventricular diastolic dysfunction ( P =0.001), 3 times the odds of global hypokinesia ( P =0.001), and >7 times the odds of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities ( P =0.001). In the second model comparing ESUS with cardioembolic stroke, patients with ESUS were 3 times more likely to have left ventricular wall motion abnormalities ( P =0.001) and 1.5 times more likely to have left ventricular diastolic dysfunction grade I ( P =0.009), and 3 times more likely to have left ventricular diastolic dysfunction grades II and III ( P =0.009), whereas age ( P =0.001) and left atrial volume index ( P =0.004) showed an inverse relation with ESUS. ESUS in patients ≥61 years old had higher levels of traditional risk factors such as coronary artery disease, but the coronary artery disease was not significantly different in ESUS age groups ( P =0.80) despite higher left ventricular wall motion abnormalities ( P =0.001). Conclusions Patients with ESUS and noncardioembolic stroke were younger than patients with cardioembolic stroke. While a third of the patients with ESUS >45 years old had coronary artery disease, it was unrecognized or underreported in the older ESUS age group ( ≥ 61 years old). In patients with ESUS from Southeast Asia and Eastern Mediterranean regions, left ventricular wall motion abnormalities and left ventricular diastolic dysfunction were related to ESUS.
Kamran et al. (Wed,) conducted a cohort in Acute ischemic stroke (n=2,536). Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) vs. Noncardioembolic and cardioembolic stroke was evaluated on Association of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities with ESUS compared to noncardioembolic stroke (OR >7, p=0.001). Embolic stroke of undetermined source was associated with >7 times the odds of left ventricular wall motion abnormalities compared to noncardioembolic stroke (P=0.001).