Trial reportJournal of the American Heart Association2025
Heart Rhythm Monitoring Practices, Detection of Atrial Fibrillation, and Effect of Anticoagulation in the ARCADIA Trial.
Trial report in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prolonged QT interval and risk of recurrent stroke in the Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke (ARCADIA) trial.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2026Article
- Long-Term Cardiac Rhythm Monitoring After Ischemic Stroke: Detecting Atrial Fibrillation in the Era of Atrial Cardiopathy.Missouri medicineReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ARCADIA (Atrial Cardiopathy and Antithrombotic Drugs in Prevention After Cryptogenic Stroke) trial found no benefit of anticoagulation for preventing recurrent stroke in patients with atrial cardiopathy. Data on AF monitoring across trial sites may provide context for the findings and knowledge about the current standard of care for poststroke monitoring.
methodsAt study visits, sites reported any preceding use of prolonged heart rhythm monitoring, classified as either external ambulatory monitors or implantable loop recorders. We used relative risk regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, and survival analysis to explore patient characteristics associated with monitoring, the association between monitoring and AF detection, and the interaction between monitoring and study treatment effect on recurrent stroke.
resultsOf 1633 patients with monitoring data, 957 (58.6%) underwent prolonged monitoring: 567 (34.7%) external ambulatory monitor, 479 (29.3%) implantable loop recorder, and 89 (5.5%) both. The strongest predictors of monitoring were Hispanic ethnicity (standardized LASSO coefficient, -0.19 [risk ratio (RR), 0.66]), National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (LASSO, -0.15 [RR per point, 0.97]), left atrial diameter (LASSO, 0.13 [RR per cm, 1.09]), and serum hemoglobin (LASSO, -0.12 [RR per g/dL, 0.97]). At the site level, the median proportion of patients who underwent monitoring was 63% (interquartile range, 36%-92%). The site-level proportion of patients with an implantable loop recorder was associated with greater likelihood of AF detection (RR, 3.9 [95% CI, 2.1-7.4]) but did not modify the trial treatment effect (
conclusionsIn the ARCADIA trial, which enrolled patients with cryptogenic stroke across the United States and Canada, nearly 60% of patients underwent prolonged heart rhythm monitoring. Use of implantable loop recorders was associated with greater likelihood of AF detection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.