Pathogenetic mechanisms of ischemic stroke: from verification to secondary prevention

Ischemic stroke is an extremely heterogeneous disease: there are more than 200 causes of cerebral catastrophe. Early identification of the pathogenetic mechanism (subtype) of ischemic stroke allows planning an individual secondary prevention strategy, which includes a wide range of pharmaceutical and surgical methods. The article presents the characteristics of cardioembolic (associated with atrial fibrillation and flutter, prosthetic valves, chronic heart failure, left ventricle thrombus, infective endocarditis, open foramen ovale, etc.), atherothrombotic (due to extra- and intracranial atherosclerosis), lacunar and cryptogenic stroke, as well as less common causes of the disease, in particular cervical or cerebral artery dissection. Issues of secondary prevention of stroke according to the pathogenetic subtype are described and summarized as an algorithm. The article is illustrated with clinical examples.

Biomarkers of atrial cardiopathy in patients with different pathogenetic subtypes of ischemic stroke

Studies of the biomarkers of atrial cardiopathy seem to be promising for identifying patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS), in which an intensive search for atrial fibrillation is indicated. Nevertheless, the diagnostic value of these markers and their threshold values require clarification.

Objective: to present the characteristics of echocardiographic markers for atrial cardiopathy and the serum concentration of N-terminal pro-Btype natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) in embolic CS versus cardioembolic stroke (CES) and non-cardioembolic stroke (non-CES) to determine the threshold values of parameters with the highest sensitivity and specificity in differentiating CES and non-CES.

Patients and methods. A total of 259 patients with ischemic stroke were examined. The standard examination additionally involved calculation of the parameters that reflected left atrial LA) function (LAF): LA emptying fraction (LAEF), and LA functional index (LAFI). The serum NT-proBNP concentration was also determined in 75 patients.

Results and discussion. The patients with CES versus those with CS and non-CES were characterized by a considerable increase in LA diameter (4.3 [3.5; 4.5] cm vs 3.7 [3.4; 4.0] cm vs 3.7 [3.4; 3.9] cm; p=0.005 and p=0.009, respectively), LAVI (35.7 [30.5; 39.9] ml/m2 vs 28.5 [25.6; 34.6] ml/m2 vs 27.1 [24.5; 31.2] ml/m2 ; p< 0.001) and NT-proBNP level (559 [409; 1144] pg/ml vs 164 [65; 308] pg/ml vs 191 [63; 446] pg/ml; p=0.002 and p=0.019, respectively), as well as by a lower LAEF value [50.3 [48.5; 51.1]% vs 54.7 [51.6; 56.6]% vs 54.9 [52.5; 56.8]%; p< 0.001). The only parameter that showed significant differences between all the three groups (CES, CS, and nonCES) was LAFI (0.24 [0.2; 0.32] units vs 0.37 [0.3; 0.47] units vs 0.40 [0.34; 0.47] units; p<0.00 1), while maintaining the differences in the values for the two groups (CS and non-CES) (p=0.004). The following threshold values of biomarkers were obtained for CES and nonCES; these were a LA diameter of 41.5 mm (p< 0.001), a LAVI of 36.3 ml/m2 (p< 0.001), a LAEF of 51.8% (p< 0.001), a LAFI of 0.28 units (p< 0.001), and an NT-proBNP of 316 pg/ml (p< 0.001). Analysis of the ROC curves and the area under the curve (AUC) revealed that the most informative criteria for sensitivity and specificity were LAEF (79 and 88%, AUC 0.89), NT-proBNP (67 and 91%, AUC 0.89) and LAFI (93 and 72%, AUC 0.81).

Conclusion. The CS group and non-CES one are comparable in the echocardiographic manifestations of atrial cardiopathy and in serum NTproBNP values. LAEF and NT-proBNP concentrations are promising biomarkers to classify CS patients into potential arterio- and cardioembolic types.