Key result
Lower baseline LA reservoir strain is linked to ~7-point lower values in post-stroke AF detection.
Why the study?
The magnitude and consistency of group-level differences in speckle-tracking echocardiography-derived LA phasic strain and LV GLS between patients with and without AF subsequently detected after cryptogenic stroke remained uncertain.
Does baseline speckle-tracking echocardiographic left atrial phasic strain or left ventricular global longitudinal strain differ between patients with and without subsequently detected atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke or ESUS?
Meta-Analysis (n=2,755)
Yes
Does baseline speckle-tracking echocardiographic left atrial phasic strain or left ventricular global longitudinal strain differ between patients with and without subsequently detected atrial fibrillation after cryptogenic stroke or ESUS?
Mean Difference: -7.44 (95% CI -9.52–-5.36)
Baseline left atrial phasic strain—especially LA reservoir strain—is significantly lower on average in cryptogenic stroke/ESUS patients who subsequently develop detected AF, supporting its prospective evaluation as a component of multivariable risk-stratification strategies for prolonged rhythm monitoring rather than as a standalone diagnostic tool.
May inform prolonged monitoring selection after cryptogenic stroke; extends observational cohorts but leaves open prospective validation.
Background Undetected atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important potential mechanism after cryptogenic stroke. Speckle-tracking echocardiography-derived left atrial (LA) phasic strain and left ventricular global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) have been reported to differ between patients with and without AF subsequently detected after stroke, but the magnitude and consistency of these group-level differences remain uncertain. Methods PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were searched from inception to May 3, 2026. Eligible reports enrolled adults with cryptogenic ischemic stroke or embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS); mixed undetermined-source cerebrovascular cohorts were retained only when the source report explicitly framed the population as cryptogenic stroke/ESUS or undetermined-source cerebrovascular disease. No numerical percentage threshold for cohort composition had been prespecified in the registered protocol. Reports excluded known AF at baseline, measured LV GLS or LA phasic strain by speckle-tracking echocardiography, and reported AF detected during follow-up. Random-effects meta-analyses used raw mean differences (MDs) and complementary Hedges g standardized mean differences (SMDs), with restricted maximum-likelihood estimation, Hartung-Knapp confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals. Prespecified outcome-level deduplication was retained; revision-stage analyses included a monitoring-duration subgroup analysis, a cohort-only reservoir-strain sensitivity analysis, and a conduit-strain sensitivity analysis addressing unresolved values in Bufano et al. Results Nineteen reports representing 17 cohort clusters were included. Outcome-specific analyses comprised 7 datasets for LV GLS ( n = 1,403), 17 for LA reservoir strain ( n = 2,755), 10 for the primary LA conduit-strain analysis excluding Bufano et al. ( n = 1,958), and 14 for LA contractile strain ( n = 2,455). Patients with subsequently detected AF had lower LA reservoir strain (MD, -7.44% points; 95% CI, -9.52 to -5.36; SMD, -0.87; 95% CI, -1.11 to -0.62), LA conduit strain in the primary analysis excluding Bufano et al. (MD, -3.29; 95% CI, -5.17 to -1.41; SMD, -0.45; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.24), and LA contractile strain (MD, -4.31; 95% CI, -5.96 to -2.65; SMD, -0.80; 95% CI, -1.10 to -0.50). LV GLS did not differ significantly (MD, -1.15; 95% CI, -2.89 to 0.60; SMD, -0.37; 95% CI, -0.99 to 0.25). Prediction intervals crossed the null for all outcomes. In the exploratory monitoring-duration subgroup analysis of 15 LA reservoir-strain datasets, there was no statistically significant between-category difference ( P = 0.9275). Conclusions Baseline LA phasic strain was lower, on average, in patients with AF subsequently detected after cryptogenic stroke or ESUS, with the largest standardized group separation observed for LA reservoir strain. However, substantial heterogeneity, null-crossing prediction intervals, and predominantly aggregate unadjusted data preclude conclusions about independent predictive performance or individualized discrimination. These findings support prospective evaluation of LA strain as one component of multivariable strategies for selecting patients for prolonged rhythm monitoring, rather than as a standalone diagnostic or treatment-decision tool.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2026) conducted a meta-analysis in Cryptogenic ischemic stroke or embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) (n=2,755). Subsequent atrial fibrillation (AF) detection / baseline speckle-tracking echocardiographic LA reservoir strain vs. No atrial fibrillation detected during follow-up was evaluated on Baseline left atrial (LA) reservoir strain difference between patients with vs without subsequently detected atrial fibrillation (MD -7.44% points, 95% CI -9.52 to -5.36). Baseline LA reservoir strain was significantly lower in cryptogenic stroke/ESUS patients with subsequently detected AF compared to those without AF (MD -7.44% points, 95% CI -9.52 to -5.36).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: