| Literature DB >> 27283276 |
Francesca Bridge1, Vincent Thijs1,2.
Abstract
The introduction of insertable cardiac monitoring devices has dramatically altered our understanding of the role of intermittent atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke. In this narrative review we discuss the incidence, timing and relationship between atrial fibrillation and cryptogenic stroke, how to select patients for monitoring and the value and limitations of different monitoring strategies. We also discuss the role of empirical anticoagulation, and atrial fibrillation burden as a means of tailoring anticoagulation in patients at high risk of bleeding.Entities:
Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cryptogenic; Ischemia; Stroke
Year: 2016 PMID: 27283276 PMCID: PMC4901953 DOI: 10.5853/jos.2016.00150
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Stroke ISSN: 2287-6391 Impact factor: 6.967
Cryptogenic stroke (CS) versus embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS)
| CS |
|---|
| Diagnostic assessment incomplete; or |
| No cause found despite extensive assessment; or |
| Multiple potential causes, e.g., concurrent atrial fibrillation and relevant high grade stenosis of precerebral artery |
| Stroke etiology remains unknown despite all of following investigations: |
| Brain imaging (CT/MRI) |
| Electrocardiogram |
| Transthoracic echocardiogram |
| 24-hour Holter cardiac monitor |
| Imaging of extra and intra-cranial arteries |
Summary of studies/trials that investigated the incidence of atrial fibrillation detection following cryptogenic stroke
| Study | Sample size | Study design | Incidence of AF detection |
|---|---|---|---|
| EMBRACE trial | n = 572 | Randomized control study | At 90 days: 16.1% of intervention group (non-invasive ambulatory electrocardiogram monitoring) vs. 3.2% of control group |
| CRYSTAL AF trial | n = 441 | Randomized control study | At 6 months: 8.9% of intervention group (insertible cardiac monitor [ICM]) vs. 1.4% of control group |
| 12 months: 12.4% of intervention group vs. 2% of control group | |||
| 36 months: 30% of intervention group vs. 3% of control group | |||
| Ziegler et al. (2015) | n = 1,247 | Retrospective cohort analysis | 30 days: 4.6% of patients with ICM |
| 182 days: 12.2% of patient with ICM |