Dataset Information

Stroke Severity and Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

ABSTRACT: Background and Purpose: Once a stroke occurs in a patient with atrial fibrillation (AF), it is likely to be severe. Patients with newly diagnosed AF after stroke and those with known AF before stroke have different background characteristics, yet the difference in stroke severity has not been sufficiently evaluated. In the current study, we compared the stroke severity and in-hospital outcomes between these patient groups. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a database of 196 patients with acute ischemic stroke and AF between January 2010 and October 2019. We divided the patients into two groups: patients with "newly diagnosed AF" and those with "known AF." We assessed the stroke severity using the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on admission and in-hospital outcomes using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at discharge. Results: The proportion of newly diagnosed AF was 33% (64/196). There were no differences in age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and past history of heart failure between patients with newly diagnosed AF and those with known AF. Patients with newly diagnosed AF were associated with a lower proportion of male sex (male; 50 vs. 67%, p < 0.05), a lower proportion of past history of stroke (12 vs. 35%, p < 0.01), a lower CHA₂DS₂-VASc score (median [interquartile range]; 3 [2-4] vs. 3.5 [3-5], p < 0.01), and a lower proportion of pre-stroke oral anticoagulation (5 vs. 59%, p < 0.01). There were no differences in the NIHSS score on admission (12 [4-19] vs. 9 [3-19]) or the mRS score at discharge (3 [1-5] vs. 3 [1-5]). After adjustment for relevant covariates, newly diagnosed AF was not associated with the NIHSS score on admission [adjusted common odds ratio (OR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-1.60] or the mRS score at discharge (adjusted common OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 0.88-3.18). After propensity score matching, newly diagnosed AF was not associated with the NIHSS score on admission (adjusted common OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.48-1.73) and the mRS score at discharge (adjusted common OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.92-3.43). Conclusion: Stroke severity and in-hospital outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed AF did not differ from those in patients with known AF after adjustment for clinically relevant factors. The importance of detection of latent AF and subsequent anticoagulation in preventing severe stroke should be further emphasized.

SUBMITTER: Watanabe K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8275857 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy. Objective:To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone. Design, Setting, and Participants:Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019. Exposure:Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone. Main Outcomes and Measures:Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications. Results:A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months). Conclusions and Relevance:This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Project description:Background It remains controversial whether long-term clinical impact of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) in the acute phase of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is different from that of prior AF diagnosed before the onset of AMI. Methods and Results The current study population from the CREDO-Kyoto AMI (Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto Acute Myocardial Infarction) Registry Wave-2 consisted of 6228 patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The baseline characteristics and long-term clinical outcomes were compared according to AF status (newly diagnosed AF: N=489 [7.9%], prior AF: N=589 [9.5%], and no AF: N=5150 [82.7%]). Median follow-up duration was 5.5 years. Patients with newly diagnosed AF and prior AF had similar baseline characteristics with higher risk profile than those with no AF including older age and more comorbidities. The cumulative 5-year incidence of all-cause death was higher in newly diagnosed AF and prior AF than no AF (38.8%, 40.7%, and 18.7%, P<0.001). The adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF remained significant with similar magnitude (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.12-1.54; P<0.001, and HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.52; P<0.001, respectively). The cumulative 5-year incidence of stroke decreased in the order of newly diagnosed AF, prior AF and no AF (15.5%, 12.9%, and 6.3%, respectively, P<0.001). The higher adjusted HRs of both newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for stroke, with a greater risk of newly diagnosed AF than that of prior AF (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.56-2.69; P<0.001, and HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.00-1.78; P=0.048, respectively). The higher stroke risk of newly diagnosed AF compared with prior AF was largely driven by the greater risk within 30 days. The higher adjusted HRs of newly diagnosed AF and prior AF relative to no AF were significant for heart failure hospitalization (HR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.35-2.22; P<0.001, and HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 1.82-2.74; P<0.001, respectively) and major bleeding (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.23-1.73; P<0.001, and HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.15-1.60; P<0.001, respectively). Conclusions Newly diagnosed AF in AMI had risks for mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and major bleeding higher than no AF, and comparable to prior AF. The risk of newly diagnosed AF for stroke might be higher than that of prior AF.

Dataset Information

Stroke Severity and Outcomes in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets