Why the study?
What are the current evidence, guidelines, and cost-effectiveness strategies for secondary stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
What are the current evidence, guidelines, and cost-effectiveness strategies for secondary stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation?
This review provides a comprehensive overview of risk stratification, diagnosis, treatment, and cost-effectiveness for secondary stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation based on major trials and guidelines.
Consolidates evidence for secondary stroke prevention in nonvalvular AF; leaves open need for updated prospective cost-effectiveness trials.
Approximately 750,000 US adults per year experience a stroke. On average, the annual risk for future ischemic stroke (secondary stroke) after an initial ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack is approximately 3% to 4%. Cardioembolic strokes account for 20% to 25% of all strokes, with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) considered one of the main sources of embolism; this explains up to half of all cardioembolic strokes. We present the risk factors for stroke in NVAF, risk stratification, a diagnosis of NVAF, and treatment and prevention of stroke in NVAF. We reviewed the literature by performing a PubMed search of articles focusing on secondary stroke prevention in NVAF. This review examines the findings of major clinical trials and society guidelines for secondary stroke prevention in NVAF and presents a cost-effectiveness analysis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Damani et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: