Evidence Hub

Characteristics of Recurrent Ischemic Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

R. Veltkamp, L. Pearce, E. Korompoki, Mukul Sharma, S. Kasner, D. Toni, S. Ameriso, H. Mundl et al.

JAMA Neurology, 2020

7,213 participants · 59 citations

Abstract

Importance

The concept of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) unifies a subgroup of cryptogenic strokes based on neuroimaging, a defined minimum set of diagnostic tests, and exclusion of certain causes. Despite an annual stroke recurrence rate of 5%, little is known about the etiology underlying recurrent stroke after ESUS.

Objective

To identify the stroke subtype of recurrent ischemic strokes after ESUS, to explore the interaction with treatment assignment in each category, and to examine the consistency of cerebral location of qualifying ESUS and recurrent ischemic stroke.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted from December 23, 2014, to October 5, 2017. The trial compared the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with recent ESUS (n = 7213). Ischemic stroke was validated in 309 of the 7213 patients by adjudicators blinded to treatment assignment and classified by local investigators into the categories ESUS or non-ESUS (ie, cardioembolic, atherosclerotic, lacunar, other determined cause, or insufficient testing). Five patients with recurrent strokes that could not be defined as ischemic or hemorrhagic in absence of neuroimaging or autopsy were excluded. Data for this secondary post hoc analysis were analyzed from March to June 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to receive rivaroxaban, 15 mg/d, or aspirin, 100 mg/d.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Association of recurrent…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 7,213 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free