10 research outputs found

    Systolic Blood Pressure and Effects of Screening for Atrial Fibrillation With Long-Term Continuous Monitoring (a LOOP Substudy)

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a well-known risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and stoke, but data on the interaction between systolic blood pressure (SBP) and effects of AF screening are lacking. METHODS: The LOOP Study randomized AF-naïve individuals aged 70 to 90 years with additional stroke risk factors to either screening with implantable loop recorder (ILR) and anticoagulation initiation upon detection of AF episodes ≥6 minutes, or usual care. In total, 5997 participants with available baseline SBP measurements were included in this substudy. Outcomes were analyzed according to the time-to-first-event principle using cause-specific Cox models. RESULTS: The hazard ratio of stroke or systemic arterial embolism for ILR versus control decreased with increasing SBP. ILR screening yielded a 44% risk reduction of stroke or systemic arterial embolism among participants with SBP ≥150 mm Hg (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.56 [0.37–0.83]). Within the ILR group, SBP≥150 mm Hg was associated with a higher incidence of AF episodes ≥24 hours than lower SBP (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.70 [1.08–2.69]) but not with the overall occurrence of AF (adjusted P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The impact of AF screening on thromboembolic events increased with increasing blood pressure. SBP≥150 mm Hg was associated with a >1.5-fold increased risk of AF episodes ≥24 hours, along with an almost 50% risk reduction of stroke or systemic arterial embolism by ILR screening compared to lower blood pressure. These findings should be considered hypothesis-generating and warrant further study. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT02036450

    Severity and Etiology of Incident Stroke in Patients Screened for Atrial Fibrillation vs Usual Care and the Impact of Prior Stroke:A Post Hoc Analysis of the LOOP Randomized Clinical Trial

    Get PDF
    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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0203645

    The ABC‐Stroke Risk Score and Effects of Atrial Fibrillation Screening on Stroke Prevention:Results From the Randomized LOOP Study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The ABC-stroke score is a risk scheme for prediction of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) in atrial fibrillation (AF). This study sought to examine whether the score could be useful in predicting stroke in AF-naïve individuals and risk stratifying for AF screening. METHODS AND RESULTS: The LOOP (Atrial Fibrillation Detected by Continuous ECG Monitoring Using Implantable Loop Recorder to Prevent Stroke in High-Risk Individuals) study randomized 6004 AF-naïve individuals aged 70 to 90 years with stroke risk factors to either screening with an implantable loop recorder and anticoagulation upon detection of new-onset AF episodes ≥6 minutes, or usual care. A total of 5781 participants had available ABC-stroke score at baseline and were included in this secondary analysis: 4170 (72.1%) with an estimated stroke/SE risk ≤1%/year versus 1611 (27.9%) with an estimated stroke/SE risk &gt;1%/year. Having an annual ABC-stroke risk &gt;1% was associated with stroke/SE, stroke/SE/cardiovascular death, and allcause death (hazard ratio, 1.82 [95% CI, 1.44–2.21], 2.17 [95% CI, 1.80–2.62], and 2.19 [95% CI, 1.87–2.56], respectively). For screening with implantable loop recorder versus usual care, no significant reduction in these study outcomes was obtained in any ABC-stroke risk groups (P&gt;0.0500 for all), with no signal toward interaction (P interaction &gt;0.2500 for all). Similar findings were yielded when assessing the ABC-stroke score as a continuous variable. CONCLUSIONS: In an elderly, AF-naïve population with additional stroke risk factors, a higher ABC-stroke score could identify individuals with increased stroke risk. However, this risk score may not be useful in pinpointing those more likely to benefit from AF screening and subsequent preventive treatment. These findings should be considered as hypothesis generating and warrant further study.</p
    corecore