4.3 Article

Refinement of CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores predict left atrial thrombus or spontaneous echo contrast in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03000605221074520

关键词

Atrial fibrillation; left atrial thrombus; spontaneous echo contrast; thromboembolism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the risk factors of left atrial thrombus/spontaneous echo contrast in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Non-paroxysmal AF and increased left atrial diameter are identified as independent risk factors beyond the traditional risk scores and can be used to improve risk stratification.
Objective To investigate the risk factors of left atrial thrombus (LAT)/spontaneous echo contrast (SEC) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods This retrospective study analysed the data from consecutive patients with nonvalvular AF that underwent transoesophageal echocardiography. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors of LAT/SEC. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was undertaken compare the new scales with CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Results A total of 558 patients with AF were included in the study. LAT/SEC was detected in 137 (24.6%) patients. The independent risk factors of LAT/SEC beyond CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc scores included non-paroxysmal AF and left atrial diameter >37.5 mm. These two variables were added into the CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score to build new scales. Areas under the curve for the new scales based on CHADS2 and CHA2DS2-VASc scores were significantly higher than the CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score both in the overall study cohort and in patients at a high risk of thromboembolism. Conclusions Non-paroxysmal AF and increased left atrial diameter beyond the CHADS2 or CHA2DS2-VASc score were independent risk factors of LAT/SEC and may help to improve the current risk stratification, especially for patients with nonvalvular AF at a high risk of thromboembolism.

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

4.3
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