4.7 Article

Predictors for atrial fibrillation detection after cryptogenic stroke Results from CRYSTAL AF

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 86, 期 3, 页码 261-269

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002282

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medtronic, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective:We assessed predictors of atrial fibrillation (AF) in cryptogenic stroke (CS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients who received an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM).Methods:We studied patients with CS/TIA who were randomized to ICM within the CRYSTAL AF study. We assessed whether age, sex, race, body mass index, type and severity of index ischemic event, CHADS(2) score, PR interval, and presence of diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, or patent foramen ovale and premature atrial contractions predicted AF development within the initial 12 and 36 months of follow-up using Cox proportional hazards models.Results:Among 221 patients randomized to ICM (age 61.6 11.4 years, 64% male), AF episodes were detected in 29 patients within 12 months and 42 patients at 36 months. Significant univariate predictors of AF at 12 months included age (hazard ratio [HR] per decade 2.0 [95% confidence interval 1.4-2.8], p = 0.002), CHADS(2) score (HR 1.9 per one point [1.3-2.8], p = 0.008), PR interval (HR 1.3 per 10 milliseconds [1.2-1.4], p < 0.0001), premature atrial contractions (HR 3.9 for >123 vs 0 [1.3-12.0], p = 0.009 across quartiles), and diabetes (HR 2.3 [1.0-5.2], p < 0.05). In multivariate analysis, age (HR per decade 1.9 [1.3-2.8], p = 0.0009) and PR interval (HR 1.3 [1.2-1.4], p < 0.0001) remained significant and together yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 (0.70-0.85). The same predictors were found at 36 months.Conclusion:Increasing age and a prolonged PR interval at enrollment were independently associated with an increased AF incidence in CS patients. However, they offered only moderate predictive ability in determining which CS patients had AF detected by the ICM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据