Observational studyActa neurologica Belgica2025
Clinical implications of the recalibrated CHA₂DS₂-VA score for women after ischemic stroke: a prospective cohort study.
Observational study in Acta neurologica Belgica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Revisiting the Obesity Paradox: Stroke Subtype-Specific Associations of BMI and WHR with Functional Outcome.Cerebrovascular diseases extra · 2026Article
- Circadian Blood Pressure Phenotyping Identifies Subtype-Specific Risk and Outcomes in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Prospective Study.Translational stroke research · 2025Article
- Cardioembolic stroke versus embolic stroke of undetermined source: early severity and long-term outcomes in a prospective cohort.BMC neurology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe 2024 ESC atrial fibrillation guidelines introduced the CHA₂DS₂-VA score by removing female sex as an independent risk criterion. Although intended to simplify risk stratification and avoid sex-based overtreatment, the real-world implications for women who present with AF-related ischemic stroke/TIA remain unclear. In this prospective observational study, we examined the clinical implications of CHA₂DS₂-VA recalibration in a post-stroke setting, focusing on sex-specific differences in stroke severity and early functional outcome, and on the proportion of women who newly fall below the anticoagulation threshold (score ≤ 1).
methodsIn a prospective cohort of 714 consecutive stroke patients, 161 (22.5%) had documented AF. Risk stratification was performed using both CHA₂DS₂-VASc and the revised CHA₂DS₂-VA score. Stroke severity (NIHSS) and functional outcome (mRS) were analyzed by sex. Propensity score matching and multivariable logistic regression were used to examine the independent association between sex and stroke severity.
resultsFemale patients with AF were older and had a higher vascular risk burden than men. They presented with significantly more severe strokes (median NIHSS 12 vs. 8; P < 0.01) and tended toward worse outcomes. After score recalibration, 11 of 81 women (13.6%) had a CHA₂DS₂-VA score ≤ 1, falling below the ESC anticoagulation threshold-despite having experienced an ischemic stroke. Most of these patients had cardioembolic strokes and moderate-to-severe neurological deficits. In matched analyses, female sex remained independently associated with severe stroke (aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.03-2.29).
conclusionIn this prospective cohort of AF-related ischemic stroke, women had greater comorbidity burden and higher stroke severity than men. A subgroup with CHA₂DS₂-VA ≤ 1 nonetheless sustained ischemic stroke, and exploratory 5-year follow-up suggested excess recurrence without anticoagulation. These findings require validation in larger cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.