Timo Uphaus1, Mark Weber-Krüger1, Martin Grond1, Gerrit Toenges1, Antje Jahn-Eimermacher1, Marek Jauss1, Paulus Kirchhof1, Rolf Wachter1, Klaus Gröschel2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (T.U., K.G.), and Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (G.T., A.J.-E.), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz; Department of Cardiology and Pneumology (M.W.-K.), University of Göttingen; Clinic and Policlinic for Cardiology (R.W.), University Hospital Leipzig, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.G.), Kreisklinikum Siegen; Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences (A.J.-E.); Department of Neurology (M.J.), Hainich Klinikum, Mühlhausen, Germany; Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences (P.K.), University of Birmingham; and Department of Cardiology (P.K.), SWBH and UHB NHS Trusts, Birmingham, UK. 2. From the Department of Neurology (T.U., K.G.), and Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics (G.T., A.J.-E.), University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz; Department of Cardiology and Pneumology (M.W.-K.), University of Göttingen; Clinic and Policlinic for Cardiology (R.W.), University Hospital Leipzig, Germany; Department of Neurology (M.G.), Kreisklinikum Siegen; Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences (A.J.-E.); Department of Neurology (M.J.), Hainich Klinikum, Mühlhausen, Germany; Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences (P.K.), University of Birmingham; and Department of Cardiology (P.K.), SWBH and UHB NHS Trusts, Birmingham, UK. klaus.groeschel@unimedizin-mainz.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Prolonged monitoring times (72 hours) are recommended to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) after ischemic stroke but this is not yet clinical practice; therefore, an individual patient selection for prolonged ECG monitoring might increase the diagnostic yield of pAF in a resource-saving manner. METHODS: We used individual patient data from 3 prospective studies (ntotal = 1,556) performing prolonged Holter-ECG monitoring (at least 72 hours) and centralized data evaluation after TIA or stroke in patients with sinus rhythm. Based on the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guideline, a clinical score was developed on one cohort, internally validated by bootstrapping, and externally validated on 2 other studies. RESULTS: pAF was detected in 77 of 1,556 patients (4.9%) during 72 hours of Holter monitoring. After logistic regression analysis with variable selection, age and the qualifying stroke event (categorized as stroke severity with NIH Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤5 [odds ratio 2.4 vs TIA; 95% confidence interval 0.8-6.9, p = 0.112] or stroke with NIHSS score >5 [odds ratio 7.2 vs TIA; 95% confidence interval 2.4-21.8, p < 0.001]) were found to be predictive for the detection of pAF within 72 hours of Holter monitoring and included in the final score (Age: 0.76 points/year, Stroke Severity NIHSS ≤5 = 9 points, NIHSS >5 = 21 points; to Find AF [AS5F]). The high-risk group defined by AS5F is characterized by a predicted risk between 5.2% and 40.8% for detection of pAF with a number needed to screen of 3 for the highest observed AS5F points within the study population. Regarding the low number of outcomes before generalization of AS5F, the results need replication. CONCLUSION: The AS5F score can select patients for prolonged ECG monitoring after ischemic stroke to detect pAF. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that the AS5F score accurately identifies patients with ischemic stroke at a higher risk of pAF.
OBJECTIVE: Prolonged monitoring times (72 hours) are recommended to detect paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (pAF) after ischemic stroke but this is not yet clinical practice; therefore, an individual patient selection for prolonged ECG monitoring might increase the diagnostic yield of pAF in a resource-saving manner. METHODS: We used individual patient data from 3 prospective studies (ntotal = 1,556) performing prolonged Holter-ECG monitoring (at least 72 hours) and centralized data evaluation after TIA or stroke in patients with sinus rhythm. Based on the TRIPOD (Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis) guideline, a clinical score was developed on one cohort, internally validated by bootstrapping, and externally validated on 2 other studies. RESULTS: pAF was detected in 77 of 1,556 patients (4.9%) during 72 hours of Holter monitoring. After logistic regression analysis with variable selection, age and the qualifying stroke event (categorized as stroke severity with NIH Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤5 [odds ratio 2.4 vs TIA; 95% confidence interval 0.8-6.9, p = 0.112] or stroke with NIHSS score >5 [odds ratio 7.2 vs TIA; 95% confidence interval 2.4-21.8, p < 0.001]) were found to be predictive for the detection of pAF within 72 hours of Holter monitoring and included in the final score (Age: 0.76 points/year, Stroke Severity NIHSS ≤5 = 9 points, NIHSS >5 = 21 points; to Find AF [AS5F]). The high-risk group defined by AS5F is characterized by a predicted risk between 5.2% and 40.8% for detection of pAF with a number needed to screen of 3 for the highest observed AS5F points within the study population. Regarding the low number of outcomes before generalization of AS5F, the results need replication. CONCLUSION: The AS5F score can select patients for prolonged ECG monitoring after ischemic stroke to detect pAF. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that the AS5F score accurately identifies patients with ischemic stroke at a higher risk of pAF.
Authors: Jeff S Healey; David J Gladstone; Balakumar Swaminathan; Jens Eckstein; Hardi Mundl; Andrew E Epstein; Karl Georg Haeusler; Robert Mikulik; Scott E Kasner; Danilo Toni; Antonio Arauz; George Ntaios; Graeme J Hankey; Kanjana Perera; Jorge Pagola; Ashfaq Shuaib; Helmi Lutsep; Xiaomeng Yang; Shinichiro Uchiyama; Matthias Endres; Shelagh B Coutts; Michal Karlinski; Anna Czlonkowska; Carlos A Molina; Gustavo Santo; Scott D Berkowitz; Robert G Hart; Stuart J Connolly Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Jiann-Der Lee; Ya-Wen Kuo; Chuan-Pin Lee; Yen-Chu Huang; Meng Lee; Tsong-Hai Lee Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-14 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Laura Amaya Pascasio; Miguel Quesada López; Juan Manuel García-Torrecillas; Antonio Arjona-Padillo; Patricia Martínez Sánchez Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Markus Kneihsl; Egbert Bisping; Daniel Scherr; Harald Mangge; Simon Fandler-Höfler; Isabella Colonna; Melanie Haidegger; Sebastian Eppinger; Edith Hofer; Franz Fazekas; Christian Enzinger; Thomas Gattringer Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2021-09-23 Impact factor: 6.288
Authors: Hans-Christoph Diener; J Donald Easton; Robert G Hart; Scott Kasner; Hooman Kamel; George Ntaios Journal: Nat Rev Neurol Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 44.711
Authors: Cheng-Yang Hsieh; Hsuan-Min Kao; Kuan-Lin Sung; Luciano A Sposato; Sheng-Feng Sung; Swu-Jane Lin Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-04-29
Authors: Bernardo Crespo Pimentel; Thies Ingwersen; Karl Georg Haeusler; Eckhard Schlemm; Nils D Forkert; Deepthi Rajashekar; Pauline Mouches; Alina Königsberg; Paulus Kirchhof; Claudia Kunze; Serdar Tütüncü; Manuel C Olma; Michael Krämer; Dominik Michalski; Andrea Kraft; Timolaos Rizos; Torsten Helberg; Sven Ehrlich; Darius G Nabavi; Joachim Röther; Ulrich Laufs; Roland Veltkamp; Peter U Heuschmann; Bastian Cheng; Matthias Endres; Götz Thomalla Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2022-05-25