4.7 Article

Embolic Strokes of Undetermined Source in the Athens Stroke Registry A Descriptive Analysis

期刊

STROKE
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 176-181

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007240

关键词

covert atrial fibrillation; cryptogenic; embolic stroke of undetermined cause; embolism; ESUS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Purpose-A new clinical construct termed embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) was recently introduced, but no such population has been described yet. Our aim is to provide a detailed descriptive analysis of an ESUS population derived from a large prospective ischemic stroke registry using the proposed diagnostic criteria. Methods-The criteria proposed by the Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group were applied to the Athens Stroke Registry to identify all ESUS patients. ESUS was defined as a radiologically confirmed nonlacunar brain infarct in the absence of (a) extracranial or intracranial atherosclerosis causing >= 50% luminal stenosis in arteries supplying the ischemic area, (b) major-risk cardioembolic source, and (c) any other specific cause of stroke. Results-Among 2735 patients admitted between 1992 and 2011, 275 (10.0%) were classified as ESUS. In the majority of ESUS (74.2%), symptoms were maximal at onset. ESUS were of moderate severity (median National Institute Health Stroke Scale score, 5). The most prevalent risk factor was arterial hypertension (64.7%), and 50.9% of patients were dyslipidemic. Among potential causes of the ESUS, covert atrial fibrillation (AF) was the most prevalent: in 30 (10.9%) patients, AF was diagnosed during hospitalization for stroke recurrence, whereas in 50 (18.2%) patients AF was detected after repeated ECG monitoring during follow-up. Also, covert AF was strongly suggested in 38 patients (13.8%) but never recorded. Conclusions-About 10% of patients with first-ever ischemic stroke met criteria for ESUS; covert paroxysmal AF seems to be a frequent cause of ESUS.

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