Key result
Cardioembolic etiology is not linked to favorable discharge outcomes versus undetermined causes in recurrent AF stroke.
Why the study?
In patients with atrial fibrillation, competing stroke etiologies can alter disease outcomes and require different treatment strategies, but outcome differences based on presumed etiology remain unclear.
Does cardioembolic stroke etiology compared to undetermined etiology affect the likelihood of favorable discharge outcomes in AF patients with recurrent stroke?
Cohort (n=230)
No
Does cardioembolic stroke etiology compared to undetermined etiology affect the likelihood of favorable discharge outcomes in AF patients with recurrent stroke?
In AF patients with recurrent stroke, the presumed etiology (cardioembolic vs. undetermined) did not significantly impact the likelihood of being discharged home.
Should not yet alter discharge planning by etiology in recurrent AF stroke; leaves open undetected cardioembolic sources in undetermined cases.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a potent risk factor for stroke. The presence of competing etiologies can modify disease outcomes and demand different treatment strategies. OBJECTIVES: The primary purpose of the study was to examine the differences in outcomes for patients with AF admitted with a recurrent stroke, stratified according to the presumed etiology of the stroke. METHODS: We analyzed AF patients admitted for a recurrent ischemic stroke in an academic comprehensive stroke center. Recurrent strokes were categorized as "Cardioembolic", meaning AF without any competing mechanism, versus "Undetermined" etiology due to competing mechanisms. We used logistic regression to test the association between recurrent stroke etiology and favorable outcome (discharge home), after accounting for important covariates. RESULTS: We included 230 patients, with a mean age 76.9 (SD ± 11.3), 52.2% male, median National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (IQR 2-16). Patients with cardioembolic stroke (65.2%) had higher median NIHSS 8.5 (3-18) versus 3 (1-8) and were more likely to be treated with reperfusion therapies. The favorable outcome was reached by 64 patients (27.8%), and in-hospital mortality was 15.2% overall. After adjustment, there was no difference in outcome between patients with cardioembolic versus undetermined stroke etiology (odds ratio for discharge home: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.65-3.15). CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center sample of AF patients with history of stroke, there was no difference in discharge outcomes between those with cardioembolic and those with undetermined stroke etiology. This question warrants examination in larger samples to better understand the importance of the stroke mechanism and secondary prophylaxis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pedreira et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Recurrent ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (n=230). Cardioembolic stroke etiology vs. Undetermined stroke etiology was evaluated on Favorable outcome (discharge home) (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 0.65-3.15). In atrial fibrillation patients with recurrent stroke, cardioembolic etiology did not significantly affect favorable discharge outcomes compared to undetermined etiology (aOR 1.41).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: