Outcomes of recurrent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation according to presumed etiology

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a potent risk factor for stroke. The presence of competing etiologies can modify disease outcomes and demand different treatment strategies.Objectives The primary purpose of the study was to examine the differences in outcomes for patients with AF admitted with a recurrent stroke, stratified according to the presumed etiology of the stroke.Methods We analyzed AF patients admitted for a recurrent ischemic stroke in an academic comprehensive stroke center. Recurrent strokes were categorized as Car-dioembolic, meaning AF without any competing mechanism, versus Undetermined etiology due to competing mechanisms. We used logistic regression to test the association between recurrent stroke etiology and favorable outcome (discharge home), after accounting for important covariates.Results We included 230 patients, with a mean age 76.9 (SD 1 11.3), 52.2% male, median National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 7 (IQR 2-16). Patients with cardioembolic stroke (65.2%) had higher median NIHSS 8.5 (3-18) versus 3 (1-8) and were more likely to be treated with reperfusion therapies. The favorable outcome was reached by 64 patients (27.8%), and in-hospital mortality was 15.2% overall. After adjustment, there was no difference in outcome between patients with cardioembolic versus undetermined stroke etiology (odds ratio for discharge home: 1.41; 95% CI: 0.65-3.15).Conclusions In this single-center sample of AF patients with history of stroke, there was no difference in discharge outcomes between those with cardioembolic and those with undetermined stroke etiology. This question warrants examination in larger samples to better understand the importance of the stroke mechanism and secondary prophylaxis.

Automated summary

The study aimed to examine the differences in outcomes for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) admitted with a recurrent stroke, stratified according to the presumed etiology of the stroke. The results showed no difference in discharge outcomes between stroke etiologies of cardioembolic and undetermined. This question warrants further investigation in larger samples to better understand the importance of stroke mechanism and secondary prophylaxis.