The significance of the morphology-voltage-P-wave duration (MVP) ECG score for prediction of in-hospital and long-term atrial fibrillation in ischemic stroke
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common preventable cause of stroke. Diagnosis of new AF is frequent after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the recently developed morphology-voltage-P-wave duration (MVP) ECG risk score for in-hospital and long-term AF dia...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of electrocardiology 2021-11, Vol.69, p.44-50 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common preventable cause of stroke. Diagnosis of new AF is frequent after acute ischemic stroke (AIS). We aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the recently developed morphology-voltage-P-wave duration (MVP) ECG risk score for in-hospital and long-term AF diagnosis following AIS.
In this observational investigation, we evaluated the ability of the MVP ECG risk score to predict AF in 266 consecutive patients with AIS. The study population was divided into three groups according to their calculated MVP ECG risk score on admission electrocardiography. The groups were compared in terms of their predictive value for in-hospital and long-term AF diagnosis.
After adjustment for confounding baseline variables, MVP ECG risk score 5–6 group had 13.2 times higher rates of in-hospital AF compared to MVP ECG risk score 0–2 group, which was used as the reference group. For long-term follow-up, MVP ECG risk score 5–6 group had 5.2 times higher rates of long-term AF compared to MVP ECG risk score 0–2 group. A ROC analysis showed that the optimal cut-off value of the MVP ECG risk score to predict in-hospital AF was 4 with 78% sensitivity and 76% specificity (AUC: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.64–0.96; p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-0736 1532-8430 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2021.09.006 |