RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the risk of subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO) compared to those with cryptogenic stroke using implantable loop recorders (ILR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 273 consecutive patients who had ILRs inserted at our institution for either cryptogenic stroke (n = 227) or CRAO (n = 46). Our primary endpoint was a time to event analysis for the new diagnosis of AF by ILR. Univariable and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the predictors of time-to-AF. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were found to have newly diagnosed AF by remote monitoring of the ILR. AF was detected in 57 of 227 (25%) cryptogenic stroke patients by the end of a maximum 5.1 years follow-up and in seven of 46 (15%) CRAO patients by the end of a maximum 3.6 years follow-up (P = .215, log-rank test). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for freedom from AF was 59.4% for CRAO and 66.6% for cryptogenic stroke (P = NS, log-rank test). Baseline variables predicting AF included older patients, higher CHADS2 VASC score, longer PR interval on initial EKG evaluation, and mitral annular calcification on transthoracic echocardiogram. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRAO are at risk for subclinical AF, similar to those with cryptogenic stroke. Long-term monitoring to detect AF may lead to changes in pharmacotherapy to reduce the risk for subsequent stroke.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial/etiologia , Eletrocardiografia Ambulatorial/instrumentação , Oclusão da Artéria Retiniana/complicações , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/etiologia , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/fisiopatologia , Idoso , Fibrilação Atrial/fisiopatologia , Ecocardiografia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Mobile electrocardiograms (mECGs) utilizing smartphone applications are an emerging technology. Typically, a Lead I rhythm strip is recorded. However, interpretation can be difficult in patients with sinus rhythm and low amplitude P-waves (SR-LAP) or atrial flutter (AFL). We hypothesized that patients could independently obtain multi-lead tracings using a commercial mECG device, and that cardiologists who interpreted the multi-lead tracings would make more accurate diagnoses and have more confidence in their interpretation compared to a single lead only. METHODS: Thirty sets of recordings were obtained from 10 patients with either SR-LAP or AFL that was not apparent on Lead I on a standard ECG. Patients recorded Lead I, Lead II, and Lead V1 tracings using AliveCor's KardiaMobile mECG device. Twenty-nine cardiologists reviewed each patient's Lead I tracing, multi-lead tracings (Leads I, II, V1), and 12-lead ECG. Accuracy was noted and each cardiologist rated their level of confidence in their interpretation. RESULTS: All patients were able to record their own single and multi-lead tracings. Single lead, multi-lead, and the 12-lead ECG yielded 36.4%, 84.3%, and 97.7% agreement with the established diagnosis, respectively (P < .01 for each comparison). Overall mean confidence scores (out of a score of 5) were 2.95, 3.50, and 4.47 for single lead, multi-lead, and the 12-lead ECG, respectively (P < .01 for each comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Patients were able to record their own multi-lead mECG tracings. Compared to a single lead recording, multi-lead mECGs significantly improved cardiologists' diagnostic accuracy and confidence in their interpretation approaching that of a standard 12-lead ECG.