Predictors of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source in the RE‐SPECT ESUS Trial

Victor J. Del Brutto, Hans-Christoph Diener, J. Easton, C. Granger, Lisa Cronin, E. Kleine, Claudia Grauer, M. Brueckmann, K. Toyoda, P. Schellinger, P. Lyrer, C. Molina, A. Chutinet, C. Bladin, C. Estol, R. Sacco
{"title":"Predictors of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source in the RE‐SPECT ESUS Trial","authors":"Victor J. Del Brutto, Hans-Christoph Diener, J. Easton, C. Granger, Lisa Cronin, E. Kleine, Claudia Grauer, M. Brueckmann, K. Toyoda, P. Schellinger, P. Lyrer, C. Molina, A. Chutinet, C. Bladin, C. Estol, R. Sacco","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.121.023545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background We sought to determine recurrent stroke predictors among patients with embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS). Methods and Results We applied Cox proportional hazards models to identify clinical features associated with recurrent stroke among participants enrolled in RE‐SPECT ESUS (Randomized, Double‐Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, an international clinical trial evaluating dabigatran versus aspirin for patients with ESUS. During a median follow‐up of 19 months, 384 of 5390 participants had recurrent stroke (annual rate, 4.5%). Multivariable models revealed that stroke or transient ischemic attack before the index event (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83–2.82]), creatinine clearance <50 mL/min (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.23–2.32]), male sex (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.27–2.02]), and CHA2DS2‐VASc ≥4 (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.15–2.08] and HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.21–2.26] for scores of 4 and ≥5, respectively) versus CHA2DS2‐VASc of 2 to 3, were independent predictors for recurrent stroke. Conclusions In RE‐SPECT ESUS trial, expected risk factors previously linked to other common stroke causes were associated with stroke recurrence. These data help define high‐risk groups for subsequent stroke that may be useful for clinicians and for researchers designing trials among patients with ESUS. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.","PeriodicalId":17189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.121.023545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background We sought to determine recurrent stroke predictors among patients with embolic strokes of undetermined source (ESUS). Methods and Results We applied Cox proportional hazards models to identify clinical features associated with recurrent stroke among participants enrolled in RE‐SPECT ESUS (Randomized, Double‐Blind, Evaluation in Secondary Stroke Prevention Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of the Oral Thrombin Inhibitor Dabigatran Etexilate Versus Acetylsalicylic Acid in Patients With Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source) trial, an international clinical trial evaluating dabigatran versus aspirin for patients with ESUS. During a median follow‐up of 19 months, 384 of 5390 participants had recurrent stroke (annual rate, 4.5%). Multivariable models revealed that stroke or transient ischemic attack before the index event (hazard ratio [HR], 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83–2.82]), creatinine clearance <50 mL/min (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.23–2.32]), male sex (HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.27–2.02]), and CHA2DS2‐VASc ≥4 (HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.15–2.08] and HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.21–2.26] for scores of 4 and ≥5, respectively) versus CHA2DS2‐VASc of 2 to 3, were independent predictors for recurrent stroke. Conclusions In RE‐SPECT ESUS trial, expected risk factors previously linked to other common stroke causes were associated with stroke recurrence. These data help define high‐risk groups for subsequent stroke that may be useful for clinicians and for researchers designing trials among patients with ESUS. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02239120.
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
在RE - SPECT ESUS试验中,来源不明的栓塞性卒中后卒中复发的预测因素
背景:我们试图确定来源不明的栓塞性卒中(ESUS)患者卒中复发的预测因素。方法和结果:我们应用Cox比例风险模型,在RE - SPECT ESUS(随机、双盲、二级卒中预防评价,比较口服凝血酶抑制剂达比加群酯与乙酰水杨酸在来源不明的栓塞性卒中患者中的疗效和安全性)试验中,识别与复发性卒中相关的临床特征。一项评估达比加群与阿司匹林对ESUS患者疗效的国际临床试验。在19个月的中位随访期间,5390名参与者中有384名卒中复发(年发病率4.5%)。多变量模型显示,在指数事件发生前卒中或短暂性脑缺血发作(风险比[HR], 2.27 [95% CI, 1.83-2.82])、肌酐清除率<50 mL/min (HR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.23-2.32])、男性(HR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.27-2.02])、CHA2DS2‐VASc≥4(分别为4分和≥5分,HR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.15-2.08]和HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.21-2.26])和CHA2DS2‐VASc为2 - 3,是卒中复发的独立预测因素。在RE - SPECT ESUS试验中,先前与其他常见卒中原因相关的预期危险因素与卒中复发相关。这些数据有助于确定随后中风的高危人群,这可能对临床医生和研究人员在ESUS患者中设计试验有用。注册网址:https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;唯一标识符:NCT02239120。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Survival in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Active Cancer: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study Predicting Arterial Thrombotic Events Following Peripheral Revascularization Using Objective Viscoelastic Data Safety of Catheter Ablation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Amyloidosis Corin Missense Variants, Blood Pressure, and Hypertension in 11 322 Black Individuals: Insights From REGARDS and the Jackson Heart Study.
×
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