Key result
A newly developed comprehensive risk prediction model for recurrent stroke in acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation showed modest discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.68) and did not outperform conventional risk stratification tools.
Why the study?
No validated risk prediction model existed for recurrent events among patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF, and conventional risk scores have contextual limitations.
Does a newly developed comprehensive prediction model improve the prediction of recurrent stroke compared to conventional risk scores in acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation?
Cohort (n=9,316)
Yes
Does a newly developed comprehensive prediction model improve the prediction of recurrent stroke compared to conventional risk scores in acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation?
Effect estimate: c-statistic 0.68 (95% CI 0.66-0.71)
A newly developed comprehensive clinical prediction model for recurrent stroke in patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation showed only modest discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.68), failing to outperform conventional risk scores.
May aid recurrence risk stratification in AIS with AF; leaves open need for external validation before clinical use.
BACKGROUND: There is currently no validated risk prediction model for recurrent events among patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and atrial fibrillation (AF). Considering that the application of conventional risk scores has contextual limitations, new strategies are needed to develop such a model. Here, we set out to develop and validate a comprehensive risk prediction model for stroke recurrence in AIS patients with AF. METHODS: AIS patients with AF were collected from multicenter registries in South Korea and Japan. A developmental dataset was constructed with 5648 registered cases from both countries for the period 2011‒2014. An external validation dataset was also created, consisting of Korean AIS subjects with AF registered between 2015 and 2018. Event outcomes were collected during 1 year after the index stroke. A multivariable prediction model was developed using the Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard model with non-stroke mortality as a competing risk. The model incorporated 21 clinical variables and was further validated, calibrated, and revised using the external validation dataset. RESULTS: The developmental dataset consisted of 4483 Korean and 1165 Japanese patients (mean age, 74.3 ± 10.2 years; male 53%); 338 patients (6%) had recurrent stroke and 903 (16%) died. The clinical profiles of the external validation set (n = 3668) were comparable to those of the developmental dataset. The c-statistics of the final model was 0.68 (95% confidence interval, 0.66 ‒0.71). The developed prediction model did not show better discriminative ability for predicting stroke recurrence than the conventional risk prediction tools (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and ATRIA). CONCLUSIONS: Neither conventional risk stratification tools nor our newly developed comprehensive prediction model using available clinical factors seemed to be suitable for identifying patients at high risk of recurrent ischemic stroke among AIS patients with AF in this modern direct oral anticoagulant era. Detailed individual information, including imaging, may be warranted to build a more robust and precise risk prediction model for stroke survivors with AF.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute ischemic stroke with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (n=9,316). Newly developed comprehensive risk prediction model vs. Conventional risk prediction tools (CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, ATRIA) was evaluated on Discriminative ability for predicting stroke recurrence (c-statistic) (c-statistic 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.71). A newly developed comprehensive risk prediction model for recurrent stroke in acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation showed modest discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.68) and did not outperform conventional risk stratification tools.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: