The impact of competing stroke etiologies in patients with atrial fibrillation

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background: Data on the impact of competing stroke etiologies in stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are scarce. Methods: We used prospectively obtained data from an observational registry (Novel-Oral-Anticoagulants-in-Ischemic-Stroke-Patients-(NOACISP)-LONGTERM) of consecutive AF-stroke patients treated with oral anticoagulants. We compared the frequency of (i) the composite outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke (IS), intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) or all-cause death as well as (ii) recurrent IS alone among AF-stroke patients with versus without competing stroke etiologies according to the TOAST classification. We performed cox proportional hazards regression modeling adjusted for potential confounders. Furthermore, the etiology of recurrent IS was assessed. Results: Among 907 patients (median age 81, 45.6% female), 184 patients (20.3%) had competing etiologies, while 723 (79.7%) had cardioembolism as the only plausible etiology. During 1587 patient-years of follow-up, patients with additional large-artery atherosclerosis had higher rates of the composite outcome (adjusted HR [95% CI] 1.64 [1.11, 2.40], p = 0.017) and recurrent IS (aHR 2.96 [1.65, 5.35 ], p < 0.001), compared to patients with cardioembolism as the only plausible etiology. Overall 71 patients had recurrent IS (7.8%) of whom 26.7% had a different etiology than the index IS with large-artery-atherosclerosis (19.7%) being the most common non-cardioembolic cause. Conclusion: In stroke patients with AF, causes other than cardioembolism as competing etiologies were common in index or recurrent IS. Concomitant presence of large-artery-atherosclerosis seems to indicate an increased risk for recurrences suggesting that stroke preventive means might be more effective if they also address competing stroke etiologies in AF-stroke patients. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT 03826927

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.