Shadi Yaghi1, Andrew D Chang2, Ronald Akiki2, Scott Collins3, Tracy Novack2, Morgan Hemendinger2, Ashley Schomer2, Brain Mac Grory2, Shawna Cutting2, Tina Burton2, Christopher Song4, Athena Poppas4, Ryan McTaggart5, Mahesh Jayaraman5, Alexander Merkler6, Hooman Kamel6, Mitchell S V Elkind7, Karen Furie2, Michael K Atalay3. 1. Department of Neurology, New York Langone Hospital, Brooklyn, NY, USA. Electronic address: shadiyaghi@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Neurology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA; Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, USA; Department of Neurosurgery, The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. 6. Departments of Neurology and Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The current left atrial appendage (LAA) classification system (cLAA-CS) categorizes it into 4 morphologies: chicken wing (CW), windsock, cactus, and cauliflower, though there is limited data on either reliability or associations between different morphologies and stroke risk. We aimed to develop a simplified LAA classification system and to determine its relationship to embolic stroke subtypes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with ischemic stroke from a prospective stroke registry who previously underwent a clinically-indicated chest CT were included. Stroke subtype was determined and LAA morphology was classified using the traditional system (in which CW = low risk) and a new system (LAA-H/L, in which low risk morphology (LAA-L) was defined as an acute angle bend or fold from the proximal/middle portion of the LAA and high risk morphology (LAA-H) was defined as all others). As a proof of concept study, we determined reliability for the two classification systems, and we assessed the associations between both classification systems with stroke subtypes in our cohort and previous studies. RESULTS: We identified 329 ischemic stroke patients with a qualifying chest CT (126 cardioembolic subtype, 116 embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), and 87 non-cardioembolic subtypes). Intra- and inter-rater agreements improved using the LAA-H/L (0.95 and 0.85, respectively) vs. cLAA-CS (0.50 and 0.40). The LAA-H/L led to classifying 69 LAA morphologies that met criteria for CW as LAA-H. In fully adjusted models, LAA-H was associated with cardioembolic stroke (OR 5.4, 95%CI 2.1-13.7) and ESUS (OR 2.8 95% CI 1.2-6.4). Non-CW morphology was also associated with embolic stroke subtypes, but the effect size was much less pronounced. Studies using the cLAA-CS yielded mixed results for inter- and intra-rater agreements but most showed an association between a non-CW morphology and stroke with no difference among the three non-CW subtypes. CONCLUSION: The LAA-H/L classification system is simple, has excellent intra and inter-rater agreements, and may help risk identify patients with cardioembolic stroke subtypes. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The current left atrial appendage (LAA) classification system (cLAA-CS) categorizes it into 4 morphologies: chicken wing (CW), windsock, cactus, and cauliflower, though there is limited data on either reliability or associations between different morphologies and stroke risk. We aimed to develop a simplified LAA classification system and to determine its relationship to embolic stroke subtypes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with ischemic stroke from a prospective stroke registry who previously underwent a clinically-indicated chest CT were included. Stroke subtype was determined and LAA morphology was classified using the traditional system (in which CW = low risk) and a new system (LAA-H/L, in which low risk morphology (LAA-L) was defined as an acute angle bend or fold from the proximal/middle portion of the LAA and high risk morphology (LAA-H) was defined as all others). As a proof of concept study, we determined reliability for the two classification systems, and we assessed the associations between both classification systems with stroke subtypes in our cohort and previous studies. RESULTS: We identified 329 ischemic strokepatients with a qualifying chest CT (126 cardioembolic subtype, 116 embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS), and 87 non-cardioembolic subtypes). Intra- and inter-rater agreements improved using the LAA-H/L (0.95 and 0.85, respectively) vs. cLAA-CS (0.50 and 0.40). The LAA-H/L led to classifying 69 LAA morphologies that met criteria for CW as LAA-H. In fully adjusted models, LAA-H was associated with cardioembolic stroke (OR 5.4, 95%CI 2.1-13.7) and ESUS (OR 2.8 95% CI 1.2-6.4). Non-CW morphology was also associated with embolic stroke subtypes, but the effect size was much less pronounced. Studies using the cLAA-CS yielded mixed results for inter- and intra-rater agreements but most showed an association between a non-CW morphology and stroke with no difference among the three non-CW subtypes. CONCLUSION: The LAA-H/L classification system is simple, has excellent intra and inter-rater agreements, and may help risk identify patients with cardioembolic stroke subtypes. Larger studies are needed to validate these findings.
Authors: Shadi Yaghi; Andrew Chang; Gian Ignacio; Erica Scher; Nikhil Panda; Antony Chu; Michael Wu; Aaron Lord; Brian Mac Grory; Karen Furie; Mitchell S V Elkind; Michael Atalay; Christopher Song Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-01-27
Authors: Erik T Bieging; Alan Morris; Lowell Chang; Lilas Dagher; Nassir F Marrouche; Joshua Cates Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2021-05-06 Impact factor: 2.316
Authors: Manuel García-Villalba; Lorenzo Rossini; Alejandro Gonzalo; Davis Vigneault; Pablo Martinez-Legazpi; Eduardo Durán; Oscar Flores; Javier Bermejo; Elliot McVeigh; Andrew M Kahn; Juan C Del Álamo Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Soroosh Sanatkhani; Sotirios Nedios; Prahlad G Menon; Andreas Bollmann; Gerhard Hindricks; Sanjeev G Shroff Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 4.566