Risk scores for prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sina Kazemian , Diana Zarei , Ali Bozorgi , Saman Nazarian , Mahbod Issaiy , Hamed Tavolinejad , Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy , Haleh Ashraf
{"title":"Risk scores for prediction of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Sina Kazemian ,&nbsp;Diana Zarei ,&nbsp;Ali Bozorgi ,&nbsp;Saman Nazarian ,&nbsp;Mahbod Issaiy ,&nbsp;Hamed Tavolinejad ,&nbsp;Ozra Tabatabaei-Malazy ,&nbsp;Haleh Ashraf","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcrp.2024.200249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is crucial for secondary prevention in patients with recent strokes of unknown etiology. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the predictive power of available risk scores for detecting new PAF after acute ischemic stroke (AIS).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until September 2023 to identify relevant studies. A bivariate random effects meta-analysis model pooled data on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for each score. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the quality assessment.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Eventually, 21 studies with 18 original risk scores were identified. Age, left atrial enlargement, and NIHSS score were the most common predictive factors, respectively. Seven risk scores were meta-analyzed, with iPAB showing the highest pooled sensitivity and AUC (sensitivity: 89.4%, specificity: 74.2%, AUC: 0.83), and HAVOC having the highest pooled specificity (sensitivity: 46.3%, specificity: 82.0%, AUC: 0.82). Altogether, seven risk scores displayed good discriminatory power (AUC ≥0.80) with four of them (HAVOC, iPAB, Fujii, and MVP scores) being externally validated.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Available risk scores demonstrate moderate to good predictive accuracy and can help identify patients who would benefit from extended cardiac monitoring after AIS. External validation is essential before widespread clinical adoption.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29726,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","volume":"21 ","pages":"Article 200249"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277248752400014X/pdfft?md5=e6d42d5cc6a24aa4913e5c24050a7763&pid=1-s2.0-S277248752400014X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cardiology Cardiovascular Risk and Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277248752400014X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Detection of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is crucial for secondary prevention in patients with recent strokes of unknown etiology. This systematic review and meta-analysis assess the predictive power of available risk scores for detecting new PAF after acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched until September 2023 to identify relevant studies. A bivariate random effects meta-analysis model pooled data on sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) for each score. The QUADAS-2 tool was used for the quality assessment.

Results

Eventually, 21 studies with 18 original risk scores were identified. Age, left atrial enlargement, and NIHSS score were the most common predictive factors, respectively. Seven risk scores were meta-analyzed, with iPAB showing the highest pooled sensitivity and AUC (sensitivity: 89.4%, specificity: 74.2%, AUC: 0.83), and HAVOC having the highest pooled specificity (sensitivity: 46.3%, specificity: 82.0%, AUC: 0.82). Altogether, seven risk scores displayed good discriminatory power (AUC ≥0.80) with four of them (HAVOC, iPAB, Fujii, and MVP scores) being externally validated.

Conclusion

Available risk scores demonstrate moderate to good predictive accuracy and can help identify patients who would benefit from extended cardiac monitoring after AIS. External validation is essential before widespread clinical adoption.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测急性缺血性卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作后阵发性心房颤动的风险评分:系统回顾和荟萃分析
导言阵发性心房颤动(PAF)的检测对于近期病因不明脑卒中患者的二级预防至关重要。本系统综述和荟萃分析评估了现有风险评分对检测急性缺血性卒中(AIS)后新发 PAF 的预测能力。双变量随机效应荟萃分析模型汇集了每个评分的敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积(AUC)数据。结果最终确定了 21 项研究,18 个原始风险评分。年龄、左心房扩大和 NIHSS 评分分别是最常见的预测因素。对 7 个风险评分进行了荟萃分析,其中 iPAB 的集合灵敏度和 AUC 最高(灵敏度:89.4%,特异性:74.2%,AUC:0.83),HAVOC 的集合特异性最高(灵敏度:46.3%,特异性:82.0%,AUC:0.82)。结论现有的风险评分显示出中等至良好的预测准确性,可帮助识别 AIS 后从延长心脏监测中获益的患者。在临床广泛采用之前,外部验证至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
72 days
期刊最新文献
Interplay between lifestyle factors and polygenic risk for incident coronary heart disease in a large multiethnic cohort Comorbidities and determinants of health on heart failure guideline-directed medical therapy adherence: All of us Case detection of familial hypercholesterolemia using various criteria during an annual health examination in the workplace Does the timing of blood pressure medication really matter? Predictive value of glucose coefficient of variation for in-hospital mortality in acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing PCI: Insights from the MIMIC-IV database
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1