Kang, Jieun

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is a potential cardioembolic source of ischemic stroke, but its role in recurrent stroke risk and treatment response remains unclear. We explore whether LV injury associates with the risk of recurrent stroke and modifies the association between anticoagulation and stroke recurrence using real-world data. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort across 27 US sites. Patients with LV ejection fraction ≥20% were included. LV injury, defined as LV ejection fraction 20% to 40% and wall motion abnormality, was the primary exposure and treatment effect modifier. The treatment of interest was anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. The composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Outcomes were evaluated using unadjusted and inverse probability weighting adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, with treatment effect modification tested by LV injury status. RESULTS: Among 2685 patients enrolled, 2328 with complete data were analyzed (median age, 65 years; 49.8% female; median follow-up, 1.6 years). LV injury was present in 310 patients (13.3%). Overall, 535 events occurred: 258 recurrent ischemic strokes, 28 hemorrhagic strokes, 67 major hemorrhages, and 256 deaths. LV injury was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.21–1.87]), though nonsignificant after inverse probability weighting adjustment (adjusted HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.97–1.70]). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10–0.59]), relative to the non-LV injury subgroup (adjusted HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.83–1.95]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001). Similar interactions were seen for EF 20% to 40% (versus >40%; adjusted HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04–0.86]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001) and wall motion abnormality (versus no wall motion abnormality; adjusted HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.15–0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: After cryptogenic stroke, anticoagulation in those with LV injury was associated with lower rates of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, and death. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT06398366.

Background: Although the embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) construct was proposed as a unifying concept for embolic-appearing strokes without an identified cause, it includes patients with diverse and often unrecognized underlying mechanisms. This study investigates the differential rate of recurrent stroke according to the completeness of neurodiagnostic testing in a diverse multicenter cohort. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter observational cohort study (n=27 sites). Patients with ESUS were categorized into three groups: (1) established mechanism after further work up (ESUS-E), (2) patients who underwent a comprehensive diagnostic workup without an identified etiology (ESUS 2.0), and (3) no advanced workup (ESUS-NAW). The primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke was assessed by comparing ESUS 2.0 to both ESUS-E and ESUS-NAW groups using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the 2,281 patients included, 694 (30%) were classified as ESUS-E, 344 (15%) as ESUS 2.0, and 1,443 (55%) as ESUS-NAW. The ESUS 2.0 group had a significantly lower annualized recurrence rate (1.98 per 100 person-years) compared to both the ESUS-NAW group (7.7 per 100 person-years; aHR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11–0.62; p=0.002) and the ESUS-E group (6.10 per 100 person-years; aHR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.15–0.85, p=0.020). Within the ESUS-E group, cancer (aHR 5.33; 95% CI: 2.09–13.63; p < 0.001) and non-stenosing atherosclerotic disease or arch atheroma (aHR 3.40; 95% CI: 1.18–9.83; p = 0.023) were associated with significantly increased risk of recurrence when compared to ESUS 2.0. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate a lower risk of recurrent stroke in patients classified as ESUS 2.0, diverging from the 5–6% annual recurrence rates observed in prior ESUS trials. These findings suggest that patients who receive comprehensive diagnostic evaluation without identification of a specific etiology have a lower risk of recurrent stroke, an important consideration for the design of future ESUS studies.

Background Intracranial occlusions in embolic stroke of undetermined source are histopathologically similar to cardiac sources of embolism. Whether patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source and intracranial occlusion benefit from anticoagulation is unknown. Methods A multicenter retrospective cohort of adults with cryptogenic stroke was queried for patients with proximal or medium/distal vessel occlusion. The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke, which was assessed in unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards models and repeated following 1:1 propensity score matching and biweight kernel density matching. Results Of the 2328 patients who were followed over a median of 1.31 years (interquartile range, 0.34–2.85), 999 (42.6%) had an intracranial occlusion. When compared with patients without an intracranial occlusion, those with an occlusion had fewer atherosclerotic vascular risk factors, more severe symptoms, and less severe cerebral microvascular disease. The rate of recurrent stroke was similar between patients with versus without an intracranial occlusion (6.8%/year [95% CI, 5.7–8.2] versus 7.0%/year [95% CI 6.0–8.1]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.09 [95% CI, 0.77–1.55]). There was no association between occlusion and recurrent stroke in the adjusted propensity score matching (HR, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.64–1.59]) or kernel density models (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62–1.45]). There was no interaction between occlusion and treatment with anticoagulation, sex, age, or high‐risk sources of embolism for the primary outcome in the unmatched and matched analyses. Conclusions Intracranial occlusion in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source is not associated with a greater risk of recurrence when compared with patients without an intracranial occlusion. There was no difference in rate of recurrent stroke with anticoagulation when stratified by presence or absence of occlusion.

Introduction: Four randomized clinical trials have not demonstrated the superiority of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in the prevention of recurrent embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). In this multicenter observational cohort study, we evaluated long-term outcomes associated with various antithrombotic strategies according to potential embolic sources. Methods: A multicenter retrospective observational cohort of consecutive adult patients with ESUS was queried (n=27 sites). Comparisons were made between patients treated with single or combination antiplatelet therapy versus anticoagulation (direct oral anticoagulant, vitamin K antagonist, low molecular weight heparin) with or without antiplatelet therapy initiated within 7 days of stroke. The primary composite outcome of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression, with clustering by site. Causal inference was assessed using inverse probability of treatment weighted regression adjustment (IPTWRA), accounting for propensity for antiplatelet treatment, with effect estimates summarized as the average treatment effect (ATE) over time (in days). Adjusted models accounted for age, stroke severity, vascular risk factors, and major categories of potential embolic sources. Results: Of the 2201 included patients (n=218 treated with anticoagulation) followed over a median of 564 days (interquartile range [IQR] 154-1124), the median age was 65y (IQR 54-74) and 49.8% were female. Patients treated with anticoagulation were older with more frequent previous stroke, concomitant left ventricular dysfunction, and more severe deficits. Over 4541 person-years of follow-up, the annualized incidence rate of the primary outcome was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.6%-15.8%). Compared to anticoagulation, antiplatelet(s) use was not associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.91, 95% CI, 0.64-1.29) or in the IPTWRA model (average treatment effect 0.14, 95% CI, -1376.6 to 1376.9). Major bleeding events trended toward significance in the adjusted Cox model (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25-1.04) but were no different with IPTWRA (ATE 58.9, 95% CI, -125.4 to 243.2). Conclusions: These results validate the observations of randomized trials indicating a lack of benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in ESUS. A more detailed analysis of heterogeneity of treatment effect is under way.

Background: Left ventricular (LV) injury is a cardioembolic etiology of ischemic stroke. We aimed to 1) evaluate recurrent stroke risk among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury, and 2) determine if there is a treatment effect with anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We analyzed the multicenter, retrospective Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort of patients with cryptogenic ischemic stroke. The exposure was LV injury defined by 1) LV ejection fraction (EF) 20-40% and/or 2) LV wall motion abnormality (hypokinesis or akinesis). The primary composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Cox proportional hazard models were built and sequentially adjusted for 1) age and sex (Model 1), and 2) age, sex, race, ethnicity, anti-thrombotic use, and vascular risk factors (Model 2). We then assessed if there was heterogeneity in treatment effect by LV injury status with an interaction term of LV injury and oral anticoagulation use in Model 2. Results: Of 2,641 patients in CASPR, the analytic cohort included 2,191 patients with complete exposure and outcome data (median age 65 years, 49.8% female, median follow-up 1.55 years). There were 113 (5.2%) patients with LV injury (median LVEF 30%, interquartile range 25-34%). There were 559 incident events (321 recurrent strokes [288 ischemic], 71 major hemorrhages, 250 deaths). Among patients with LV injury, 15.9% were prescribed an anticoagulant within 7 days of index stroke (vs 9.6% without LV injury, p=0.03). The unadjusted risk of the primary outcome was non-significantly higher among patients with LV injury vs without (HR 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98-2.00), but became significant in Model 1 (HR 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.85) and in Model 2 (HR 1.35, 95% CI, 1.11-1.64). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation vs antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the primary outcome (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.43-0.94). In patients without LV injury, anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of the composite outcome (HR 4.35, 95% CI, 1.69-11.16, p[interaction]=0.002). Conclusion: In this observational study, there was an increased risk of the primary outcome which included recurrent stroke among patients with cryptogenic stroke and LV injury. Anticoagulation use in LV injury is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of the primary outcome. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial.