Rhythm monitoring strategies for atrial fibrillation detection in patients with cryptogenic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To summarize data on atrial fibrillation (AF) detection rates and predictors across different rhythm monitoring strategies in patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) or embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify all published studies providing relevant data through July 6, 2020. Random-effects meta-analysis method was used to pool estimates. Results: We included 47 studies reporting on a pooled population of 8,215 patients with CS or ESUS. Using implantable cardiac monitor (ICM), the pooled rate of AF was 12.2% (95% CI 9.4–15.0) at 3 months, 16.0% (95% CI 13.2–18.8) at 6 months, 18.7% (95% CI 15.7–21.7) at 12 months, 22.8% (95% CI 19.1–26.5) at 24 months, and 28.5% (95% CI 17.6–39.3) at 36 months. AF rates were significantly higher in patients with ESUS vs CS (22.0% vs 14.2%; p < 0.001) at 6 months, and in studies using Reveal LINQ vs Reveal XT ICM (19.1% vs 13.0%; p = 0.001) at 12 months. Using mobile cardiac outpatient telemetry (MCOT), the pooled rate of AF was 13.7% (95% CI 10.2–17.2) at 1 month. Predictors of AF detection with ICM included older age, CHA2DS2-VASc score, left atrial enlargement, P wave maximal duration and prolonged PR interval. Conclusion: The yield of ICM increases with the duration of monitoring. More than a quarter of patients with CS or ESUS will be diagnosed with AF during follow-up. About one in seven patients had AF detected within a month of MCOT, suggesting that a non-invasive rhythm monitoring strategy should be considered before invasive monitoring.

Keywords

• Atrial fibrillation
• Cryptogenic stroke
• Embolic stroke of undetermined source
• Insertable cardiac monitor
• Holter
• Telemetry