Wrist worn accelerometers with vibrating-alert to prompt exercises after stroke (WAVES) (2025)

Unprotected discharge: absence of stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation admitted for bleeding

Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology

Purpose Patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) on anticoagulation (AC) for stroke prevention are at an increased risk of bleeding. A common clinical dilemma is deciding when to safely restart AC following a bleed. Although studies have shown better outcomes with re-initiation of AC after hemostasis, there are clinical barriers to restarting AC. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is a safe and efficacious alternative for patients who are unable to tolerate AC following major bleeding. We aimed to evaluate the rate of stroke prevention strategies instituted at time of discharge in patients with AF on AC who had been hospitalized for a bleeding event. Methods We retrospectively identified patients with AF on AC admitted for bleeding between January 2016 and August 2019. The type of AC, form of bleeding, and CHA 2 DS 2 VASc were collected. Stroke prevention strategies upon discharge and at 3 months were noted. Results One hundred seventy-four patients with AF on AC were hospitalized with a bleeding event, of which 10.9% died. Among patients who survived, AC was restarted in 45.2% of patients, 9.7% were referred for LAAO, and 45.1% were discharged without stroke prevention strategy. At 3 months, 32.6% of patients still had no documented stroke prophylaxis. Those referred for LAAO had, on average, higher CHA 2 DS 2 VASc (5 ± 1 vs 4 ± 1, p = 0.007). Conclusions A significant number of patients with AF hospitalized for bleeding were discharged with no plan for stroke prophylaxis. Despite its safety and efficacy, LAAO appears to be an underutilized alternative in AF patients with high bleeding risk.

Differences in Stroke or Systemic Thromboembolism Readmission Risk After Hospitalization for Atrial Fibrillation and Atrial Flutter

Cureus, 2022

Background Although atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFL) are different arrhythmias, they are assumed to confer the same risk of stroke and systemic thromboembolism (STE) despite a lack of available evidence. In this study, we investigated the difference in the risk of stroke or STE after AF and AFL hospitalizations. Methodology The National Readmission Database (NRD) 2018 was used to identify AF and AFL patients using appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes and were followed until the end of the calendar year to identify stroke or STE readmissions. Survival estimates were calculated, and a Cox proportional hazards model was used to calculate the adjusted hazards ratio (aHR) and compare the risk of stroke or STE readmissions between AF and AFL groups. Results A total of 215,810 AF and 15,292 AFL patients were identified. AFL patients were more likely to be younger (66 vs. 70 years), male (68% vs. 47%), and had higher prevalence of obesity (25% vs. 22%), obstructive sleep apnea (14% vs. 12%), diabetes mellitus (31% vs. 26%), and alcohol use (6.9% vs. 5.5%) (all p < 0.01). After adjusting for potential patient and hospital-level characteristics, there was a statistically significant decrease in one-year stroke or STE readmission risk in AFL patients compared to AF patients (aHR 0.79 (0.66-0.95); p = 0.01). Conclusions AFL patients are commonly younger males with a higher burden of medical comorbidity. There is a decrease in the one-year risk of stroke or STE events in AFL patients compared to AF. The predictors of stroke and STE are similar in both AFL and AF groups. Further studies with longer follow-up and anticoagulation data are needed to verify the results.

Bleeding risk, physical functioning and non-use of anticoagulation among patients with stroke and atrial fibrillation

QJM, 2014

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common among people with stroke. Anticoagulation medications can be used to manage the deleterious impact of AF after stroke, however, may not be prescribed due to concerns about post-stroke falls and decreased functioning. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify, among people with stroke and AF, predictors of anticoagulation prescription at hospital discharge. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort study of data retrieved via medical records, including National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score, Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor score (motor or physical function), ambulation on second day of hospitalization, Morse Falls Scale (fall risk) and HAS-BLED score (Hypertension; Abnormal renal and liver function; Stroke; Bleeding; Labile INRs; Elderly >65; and Drugs or alcohol). Data analyses included bivariate comparisons between people with and without anticoagulation at discharge. Logistic-regression modeling was used to assess predictors of discharge anticoagulation. Results: There were 334 subjects included in the analyses, whose average age was 75 years old. Anticoagulation was prescribed at discharge for 235 (70%) of patients. In the adjusted regression analyses, only the FIM motor score (adjusted OR = 1.015, 95% CI 1.001-1.028) and the HAS-BLED score (adjusted OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.58) were significantly associated with anticoagulation prescription at discharge. Conclusion: It appears that in this sample, poststroke anticoagulation decisions appear to be made based on clinical factors associated with bleed risk and motor deficits or physical functioning. However, opportunities may exist for improving clinician documentation of specific reasoning for non-anticoagulation prescription.

The risk of stroke recurrence in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction

2023

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and congestive heart failure often coexist due to their shared risk factors leading to potential worse outcome, particularly cerebrovascular events. The aims of this study were to calculate the rates of ischemic and severe bleeding events in ischemic stroke patients having both AF and reduced ejection fraction (rEF) (⩽40%), compared to ischemic stroke patients with AF but without rEF. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis that drew data from prospective studies. The primary outcome was the composite of either ischemic (stroke or systemic embolism), or hemorrhagic events (symptomatic intracranial bleeding and severe extracranial bleeding). Results: The cohort for this analysis comprised 3477 patients with ischemic stroke and AF, of which, 643 (18.3%) had also rEF. After a mean follow-up of 7.5 ± 9.1 months, 375 (10.8%) patients had 382 recorded outcome events, for an annual rate of 18.0%. While the number of primary outcome events in patients with rEF was 86 (13.4%), compared to 289 (10.2%) for the patients without rEF; on multivariable analysis rEF was not associated with the primary outcome (OR 1.25; 95% CI 0.84-1.88). At the end of follow-up, 321 (49.9%) patients with rEF were deceased or disabled (mRS ⩾3), compared with 1145 (40.4%) of those without rEF; on multivariable analysis, rEF was correlated with mortality or disability (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77). Conclusions: In patients with ischemic stroke and AF, the presence of rEF was not associated with the composite outcome of ischemic or hemorrhagic events over short-term follow-up but was associated with increased mortality or disability.

Chapter 78 -Balancing Bleeding Risk with Risk of Embolism in AF: The Eternal Dilemma ASSESSING THE RISK OF STROKE

CSI Cardiology update 2017, 2017

Severity and Etiology of Incident Stroke in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care and the Impact of Prior Stroke

JAMA Neurology

IMPORTANCE Atrial fibrillation (AF) screening trials have failed to demonstrate a significant reduction in stroke risk. The impact on stroke severity and the importance of prior strokes are unknown. OBJECTIVE To assess stroke characteristics in patients undergoing implantable loop recorder (ILR) screening for AF vs usual care and assess the importance of prior stroke. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a post hoc analysis of the Atrial Fibrillation Detected by Continuous Electrocardiogram Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorder to Prevent Stroke in High-Risk Individuals (LOOP) randomized clinical trial. Persons 70 years or older without known AF but diagnosed with 1 or more of the following, hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, or prior stroke, were screened for inclusion. Four sites in Denmark recruited participants by letter between January 31, 2014, and May 17, 2016. The median (IQR) follow-up period was 65 (59-70) months. Data were analyzed from April 1 to May 31, 2022. INTERVENTIONS ILR screening for AF and anticoagulation initiation if AF duration of 6 minutes or longer was detected (ILR group) vs usual care (control group). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Adjudicated stroke, classified according to the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) using a score of 3 or more as a cutoff for severe (disabling or lethal) stroke, and according to the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) classification for ischemic strokes. RESULTS A total of 6205 individuals were screened for inclusion, and 6004 were randomized and included in the analysis; 4503 participants (75%; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [4.1] years; 2375 male [52.7%]) were assigned to the control group and 1501 participants (25%; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [4.1] years; 792 male [52.8%]) were assigned to the ILR group. A total of 794 of 4503 participants (17.6%) in the control group had a history of prior stroke compared with 262 of 1501 participants (17.5%) in the ILR group. During follow-up, AF was diagnosed in 1027 participants (control group, 550 [12%] vs ILR group, 477 [32%]), and anticoagulation was initiated in 89% of these (910). A total of 315 participants (5.2%) had a stroke (control group, 249 [5.5%] vs ILR group, 66 [4.4%]), and the median (IQR) mRS score was 2 (1-3) with no difference across the groups. A total of 272 participants (4.5%) had ischemic stroke (control group, 217 [4.8%] vs ILR group, 55 [3.7%]), and 123 (2.0%) had severe stroke (control group, 100 [2.2%] vs ILR group, 23 [1.5%]), and the hazard ratios comparing the control and ILR groups were 0.76 (95% CI, 0.57-1.03; P = .07) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.44-1.09; P = .11), respectively. For participants without prior stroke, the hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% CI, 0.48-0.97; P = .04) and 0.54 (95% CI, 0.30-0.97; P = .04), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This post hoc analysis of the LOOP randomized clinical trial found that ILR screening for AF did not result in a significant decrease in ischemic or severe strokes compared with usual care. Exploratory subgroup analyses indicated a possible reduction of these outcomes among participants without prior stroke.

Is HAS-BLED score better than CHADS2 and HEMOR2RHAGES schemes in assessing 1 year risk of major bleed in atrial fibrillation patients?

Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association, 2013

Bleeding risk assessment and management in atrial fibrillation patients: a position document from the European Heart Rhythm Association, endorsed by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis

Europace, 2011

Despite the clear net clinical benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients at risk for stroke, major bleeding events (especially intra-cranial bleeds) may be devastating events when they do occur. The decision for OAC is often based on a careful assessment of both stroke risk and bleeding risk, but clinical scores for bleeding risk estimation are much less well validated than stroke risk scales. Also, the estimation of bleeding risk is rendered difficult since many of the known factors that increase bleeding risk overlap with stroke risk factors. As well as this, many factors that increase bleeding risk are transient, such as variable international normalized ratio values, operations, vascular procedures, or drug -drug and food -drug interactions.

Specific risk scores for specific purposes: Use CHA2DS 2-VASc for assessing stroke risk, and use HAS-BLED for assessing bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation

2014

Contemporary utilization of antithrombotic therapy for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation: an audit in an Australian hospital setting

Therapeutic advances in drug safety, 2017

Background: To document antithrombotic utilization in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), particularly, recently approved NOACs (nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants) and warfarin; and identify factors predicting the use of NOACs versus warfarin. Methods: A retrospective audit was conducted in an Australian hospital. Data pertaining to inpatients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation (AF) admitted between January and December 2014 were extracted. This included patient demographics, risk factors (stroke, bleeding), social history, medical conditions, medication history, medication safety issues, medication adherence, and antithrombotic prescribed at admission and discharge. Results: Among 199 patients reviewed, 84.0% were discharged on antithrombotics. Anticoagulants (± antiplatelets) were most frequently (52.0%) prescribed (two-thirds were prescribed warfarin, the remainder NOACs), followed by antiplatelets (33.0%). Among 41 patients receiving NOACs, 59.0% were prescribed rivaroxaban, 24.0% dabigatran, and 17.0% apixaban. Among patients aged 75 years and over, antiplatelets were most frequently used (37.0%), followed by warfarin (33.0%), then NOACs (14.0%). Compared with their younger counterparts, patients aged 75 years and over were significantly less likely to receive NOACs (14.0% versus 28.0%, p = 0.01). Among the 'most eligible' patients (Congestive Cardiac Failure, Hypertension (, Age ⩾ 75 years, Age= 65-74 years, Diabetes Mellitus, Stroke/ Transient Ischaemic Attack/ Thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Sex female[CHA 2 DS 2-VASc] score ⩾2 and no bleeding risk factors), 46.0% were not anticoagulated on discharge. Patients with anaemia (68.0% versus 86.0%, p = 0.04) or a history of bleeding (65.0% versus 87.0%, p = 0.01) were less likely to receive antithrombotics compared with those without these risk factors. Warfarin therapy was less frequently prescribed among patients with cognitive impairment compared with patients with no cognitive issues (12.0% versus 23.0%, p = 0.01). Multivariate logistic regression modelling identified that patients with renal impairment were 3.6 times more likely to receive warfarin compared with NOACs (odds ratio = 3.6, 95% confidence interval = 0.08-0.90, p = 0.03, 60.0% correctly predicted; Cox and Snell R 2 = 0.51, Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.69). Conclusion: Despite the availability of NOACs, warfarin remains a preferred treatment option, particularly among patients with renal impairment. The high proportion of eligible patients still being prescribed antiplatelet therapy or 'no therapy' needs to be addressed.