Non-conducted premature atrial complexes: A new independent predictor of atrial fibrillation in cryptogenic stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the main cardiac cause of stroke, but it frequently remains undetected. In patients with cryptogenic stroke an Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring for AF is recommended. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic role of Non-Conducted Premature Atrial Complexes (ncPACs) recorded on Holter ECG. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients admitted to the Stroke Unit of our hospital with a diagnosis of cryptogenic stroke between December 2018 and January 2020; all patients underwent 24-h Holter ECG monitoring during hospitalization. Two follow-up visits were scheduled, including a 24-h Holter ECG at 3 and 6 months to detect AF. RESULTS: Among 112 patients, 58% were male with an average age of 72.2 ± 12.2 years. At follow-up, AF was diagnosed in 21.4% of the population. The baseline 24-h Holter ECG burden of ncPACs and Premature Atrial Complexes (PACs) was higher in patients with AF detected on follow-up (13.5 vs 2, p = 0.001; 221.5 vs 52; p = 0.01). ROC analysis showed that ncPACs had the best diagnostic accuracy in predicting AF (AUC:0.80; 95% CI 0.68-0.92). Cut-off value of ≥7 for ncPACs burden showed the highest accuracy with sensitivity of 62.5% and specificity 97.7% to predict AF onset at follow-up. Moreover, at multivariate Cox-proportional hazard analysis ncPACs burden ≥7 was a powerful independent predictor of AF onset (HR 12.4; 95% CI 4.8-32.8; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: NcPACs burden ≥7 represents a new predictor of AF that could guide the screening of this arrhythmia in cryptogenic stroke patients.

Accuracy of mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis, ultrasound and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer.

AIM: To define the accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) added to digital mammography (DM) and ultrasound (US) in the preoperative assessment of breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 200 consecutive women with histologically-proven breast cancer using the above imaging techniques. Accuracy measurements were estimated using a lesion-by-lesion analysis for unifocal, multifocal/multicentric, bilateral and all carcinomas. We also calculated sensitivity according to breast density. RESULTS: DBT had higher sensitivity than DM (90.7% vs. 85.2%). Combined DM and DBT with US yielded a 97.7% sensitivity; despite high sensitivity of MRI (98.8%), the addition of MRI to combined DM with DBT and US did not significantly improve sensitivity. Overall accuracy did not significantly differ between MRI and DM with DBT and US (92.3% vs. 93.7%). Breast density affected sensitivity of DM and DBT (statistically significant difference for DM), not MRI. CONCLUSION: There is little gain in sensitivity and no gain in overall accuracy, by performing MRI for patients who have been evaluated with DM with DBT and US.