Abstract TP124: Clinical Differences Between Patients Presenting With Cardioembolic Versus Large Artery Stroke

Background: Cardioembolic (CES) and large artery (LAS) strokes are common ischemic stroke subtypes. CES arises from intracardiac thrombus secondary to atrial fibrillation (AF) or structural heart disease, whereas LAS results from atherosclerosis-related stenosis and thrombosis within the cerebral circulation. It is important to distinguish patients at risk for CES vs. LAS as prevention strategies differ, e.g., anticoagulation for CES vs. atherosclerosis risk-factor management for LAS. We aimed to identify demographic, clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic predictors distinguishing CES from LAS. Methods: We included ≥18-year-old patients who presented to our center with a neurologist-classified diagnosis of CES or LAS in calendar year 2021. Demographic variables, clinical history, laboratory measurements and echocardiographic data were extracted from retrospective chart review. Differences in characteristics were assessed using Fischer exact test or independent sample t-test. We used a stepwise selection logistic regression model (entry p<0.1, stay p<0.05) to assess the multivariable association between predictors and stroke subtype. Results: We included 341 patients (CES 189; LAS 152). As shown in Table 1, patients with CES were older (71.8±13.2 vs. 68.2±10.8 years, p<0.001), had more AF at presentation (29.4% vs. 3.4%, p<0.001), history of AF (40.2% vs. 6.6%, p<0.001), congestive heart failure (34.9% vs. 20.4%, p=0.0006), coronary artery disease (38.6% vs. 29.6%, p=0.019), larger left atrial size (3.9±0.8 vs. 3.4±0.6 cm, p<0.001) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF 52.2±16.6% vs. 60.0±8.9%, p<0.001). In contrast, LAS was associated with more smoking (44.1% vs. 28.0%, p=0.024), carotid stenosis ≥50% (49.3% vs.14.9%, p<0.001) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD 17.1% vs. 10.1%, p=0.046). Significant multivariable predictors of CES were LVEF <50% [adjusted OR 5.31 (95% CI 2.43, 11.60); p<0.0001], history of AF [7.29 (2.81, 18.92); p<0.0001], rhythm AF [4.94 (1.51, 16.23); p=0.008], age >70 years [1.91 (1.11, 3.29); p=0.020] and COPD [2.07 (1.05, 4.07); p=0.036]; while PAD [0.31 (0.14, 0.72); p=0.006] and history of atrial flutter [0.15 (0.03, 0.94); p=0.04] predicted LAS. Conclusions: CES is distinguished by presence of reduced LVEF, AF, older age and COPD while LAS has more PAD and atrial flutter. These characteristics could be used in personalizing stroke prevention strategies targeted specifically for CES vs. LAS.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Stroke
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/str.57.suppl_1.tp124
Primary Topic
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract TP124: Clinical Differences Between Patients Presenting With Cardioembolic Versus Large Artery Stroke

A. Noheria, Tyler Franken, Jaymin Cheatham, Michael Douglas et al.
Stroke
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
article

Abstract TP124: Clinical Differences Between Patients Presenting With Cardioembolic Versus Large Artery Stroke

A. Noheria, Tyler Franken, Jaymin Cheatham, Michael Douglas, Rahel M. Sileshi, Nicole Romero, Amulya Gupta
article en

Abstract

Background: Cardioembolic (CES) and large artery (LAS) strokes are common ischemic stroke subtypes. CES arises from intracardiac thrombus secondary to atrial fibrillation (AF) or structural heart disease, whereas LAS results from atherosclerosis-related stenosis and thrombosis within the cerebral circulation. It is important to distinguish patients at risk for CES vs. LAS as prevention strategies differ, e.g., anticoagulation for CES vs. atherosclerosis risk-factor management for LAS. We aimed to identify demographic, clinical, laboratory and echocardiographic predictors distinguishing CES from LAS. Methods: We included ≥18-year-old patients who presented to our center with a neurologist-classified diagnosis of CES or LAS in calendar year 2021. Demographic variables, clinical history, laboratory measurements and echocardiographic data were extracted from retrospective chart review. Differences in characteristics were assessed using Fischer exact test or independent sample t-test. We used a stepwise selection logistic regression model (entry p<0.1, stay p<0.05) to assess the multivariable association between predictors and stroke subtype. Results: We included 341 patients (CES 189; LAS 152). As shown in Table 1, patients with CES were older (71.8±13.2 vs. 68.2±10.8 years, p<0.001), had more AF at presentation (29.4% vs. 3.4%, p<0.001), history of AF (40.2% vs. 6.6%, p<0.001), congestive heart failure (34.9% vs. 20.4%, p=0.0006), coronary artery disease (38.6% vs. 29.6%, p=0.019), larger left atrial size (3.9±0.8 vs. 3.4±0.6 cm, p<0.001) and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF 52.2±16.6% vs. 60.0±8.9%, p<0.001). In contrast, LAS was associated with more smoking (44.1% vs. 28.0%, p=0.024), carotid stenosis ≥50% (49.3% vs.14.9%, p<0.001) and peripheral arterial disease (PAD 17.1% vs. 10.1%, p=0.046). Significant multivariable predictors of CES were LVEF <50% [adjusted OR 5.31 (95% CI 2.43, 11.60); p<0.0001], history of AF [7.29 (2.81, 18.92); p<0.0001], rhythm AF [4.94 (1.51, 16.23); p=0.008], age >70 years [1.91 (1.11, 3.29); p=0.020] and COPD [2.07 (1.05, 4.07); p=0.036]; while PAD [0.31 (0.14, 0.72); p=0.006] and history of atrial flutter [0.15 (0.03, 0.94); p=0.04] predicted LAS. Conclusions: CES is distinguished by presence of reduced LVEF, AF, older age and COPD while LAS has more PAD and atrial flutter. These characteristics could be used in personalizing stroke prevention strategies targeted specifically for CES vs. LAS.

StrokeVol. 57(Suppl_1)
University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Cerebrovascular and Carotid Artery Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.