4.6 Article

Serum Neurofilament Light Chain in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.122.025910

关键词

atrial fibrillation; brain health; ECG; neurofilament light chain; pathophysiology

资金

  1. Regional Research Council Mid Sweden
  2. Selander Foundation
  3. Swedish State Support for Research (ALF-agreement)
  4. Bissen Brainwalk Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

sNFL levels are higher in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) compared to those without AF. Patients with ongoing AF rhythm have even higher sNFL levels compared to patients diagnosed with AF but not currently in AF rhythm.
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with stroke and MRI features of cerebral tissue damage but its impact on levels of serum neurofilament light chain (sNFL), an established biochemical marker of neuroaxonal damage, is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this observational study, sNFL was analyzed in 280 patients with AF and 280 controls without AF matched for age, sex, and diabetes status within the STABILITY (Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy) trial. None of the patients had a history of previous stroke or transient ischemic attack. Patients with a diagnosis of AF were divided into two groups based on if they were in AF rhythm at the time of blood sampling (AF ECG+, n=74), or not (AF ECG-, n=206). Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to adjust for clinical risk factors. In patients with AF, the levels of sNFL were 15% (AF ECG+) and 10% (AF ECG-) higher than in the control group after adjustment for clinical risk factors, P=0.047 and 0.04, respectively. There was no association between anticoagulation treatment and sNFL levels. CONCLUSIONS: sNFL was elevated in patients with AF compared with matched controls without AF. Ongoing AF rhythm was associated with even higher levels of sNFL than in patients with a diagnosis of AF but currently not in AF rhythm. Anticoagulation treatment did not affect sNFL levels.

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

4.6
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