Key result
Microembolic signals within 24h of acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation were associated with worse 90-day functional outcomes compared to no signals (OR 5.04; 95% CI 1.15-39.4; p=0.04).
Why the study?
The burden of microembolic signals in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, and their impact on functional outcomes, required investigation.
Does the presence of microembolic signals (MES) predict poor functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=61)
Single-blind
Yes
Does the presence of microembolic signals (MES) predict poor functional outcomes at 90 days in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation?
Odds Ratio: 5.04 (95% CI 1.15–39.4)
Absolute Event Rate: 79% vs 43%
p-value: p=0.04
In patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, the detection of silent microembolization within 24 hours is associated with a 5-fold increased odds of poor functional outcome at 90 days.
MES detection signals higher risk of poor recovery in AF stroke; hypothesis-generating and requires validation before influencing management.
Introduction: We investigated the burden of microembolic signals (MES) in patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and atrial fibrillation (AF), assessing their impact on functional outcomes. Patients and methods: This multicentre international prospective cohort study involved patients with AIS and either a known or newly diagnosed anticoagulant-naïve AF. All centres utilised the same transcranial Doppler machine for 1-h monitoring with bilateral 2 MHz probes within 24 h of symptom onset. Recordings underwent MES analysis by a blinded central reader. The primary objectives were to ascertain the MES proportion and its association with functional outcomes assessed by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at 90 days. Results: Between September 2019 and May 2021, we enrolled 61 patients, with a median age of 78 years (interquartile range 73–83) and a median stroke severity score of 11 (interquartile range 4–18). MES were observed in 14 patients (23%), predominantly unilateral (12/14, 86%), with a median rate of 6 counts/hour (interquartile range 4–18). MES occurrence was higher post-thrombectomy and among those with elevated brain natriuretic peptide levels (p < 0.05). A worse mRS score of 3–6 was more frequent in patients with MES, occurring in 11/14 (79%), compared to those without MES, 20/47 (43%), with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.04 (95% CI, 1.15–39.4), p = 0.04. Conclusions: Nearly a quarter of patients with AIS and AF exhibited silent microembolization after the index event. Detecting MES within 24 h post-stroke (using transcranial Doppler) could signify a marker of poor functional outcomes. Subsequent trials will assess if very early antithrombotic treatment might enhance outcomes in this highly selective group of cardioembolic stroke patients. (Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT06018090).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Castro et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation (n=61). Microembolic signals (MES) vs. No microembolic signals was evaluated on Worse functional outcome (modified Rankin scale score of 3-6) at 90 days (OR 5.04, 95% CI 1.15-39.4, p=0.04). Microembolic signals within 24h of acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation were associated with worse 90-day functional outcomes compared to no signals (OR 5.04; 95% CI 1.15-39.4; p=0.04).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: