Key result
Distinct ESUS patient phenotypes are linked to significantly different recurrent stroke rates.
Why the study?
ESUS encompasses heterogeneous stroke mechanisms with potentially variable responsiveness to antithrombotic therapies, prompting evaluation of recurrent stroke risk and differential treatment benefits across phenotypic clusters.
Does anticoagulation therapy reduce recurrent stroke compared to antiplatelet therapy across different phenotypic clusters of patients with ESUS?
Does anticoagulation therapy reduce recurrent stroke compared to antiplatelet therapy across different phenotypic clusters of patients with ESUS?
Machine learning identified three distinct phenotypic clusters of ESUS patients with differing baseline risks for recurrent stroke, but these clusters did not significantly modify the treatment effect of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy.
ESUS phenotypic clusters stratify recurrent stroke risk; leaves open whether they modify anticoagulation versus antiplatelet effect.
Introduction: Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is a clinical construct encompassing heterogenous possible mechanisms of incident stroke, potentially with variable responsiveness to anticoagulation and antiplatelet treatment. This study aims to identify differences in recurrent stroke risk based on phenotypic clusters in an ESUS population, and whether some clusters may benefit relatively more from anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy. Methods: We identified patient phenotypes from a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of 1909 ESUS patients by dividing them into groups using Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) with correlation-weighted Gower distance over 23 baseline demographic, clinical, laboratory, radiographic, and cardiac features. We confirmed optimal clustering at 3 groups. We assessed cluster associations with time to recurrent stroke using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. We then employed a causal survival forest to estimate conditional average treatment effects (CATE) of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy using the same baseline features as predictors with a 365-day horizon for restricted mean survival time differences. Finally, we used best linear projection to identify baseline features predictive of treatment effect and assessed whether effects differed significantly by cluster. Results: Cluster 1 (n=542) identified a low-risk, younger sample with minimal baseline disability and comorbidity burden. Cluster 2 (n=743) comprised a moderate-risk phenotype with intermediate comorbidity. Cluster 3 (n=626) represented the oldest and highest-risk phenotype. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in stroke-free survival across patient clusters (p < 0.001), where Cluster 1 experienced the lowest recurrent stroke rate and Cluster 3 had the highest. The clustering algorithm successfully identified clinically meaningful phenotypes with distinct risk profiles. While CATE varied across clusters, the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In a multicenter ESUS population, we identified 3 distinct phenotypic clusters, each comprising nearly one-third of the sample and with a differential risk of recurrent stroke. Although cluster was not a significant effect modifier, substantial CATE variability by cluster was observed. Future clinical trials may consider evaluating secondary stroke prevention therapies among phenotypically similar patients who may respond differentially to novel therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goicoechea et al. (2026) studied this question. Cluster 1 had the lowest recurrent stroke rate, while Cluster 3 had the highest, demonstrating significant differences in stroke-free survival among ESUS patient phenotypes (p < 0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: