Back to research feed

International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society

November 26, 2025 Β· via Europe PMC

Early versus delayed insertable cardiac monitor implantation after ESUS stroke and the yield of atrial fibrillation detection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

D'Anna L, Prandin G, Foschi M, +21 more, Boon Lim P.

Systematic ReviewOpen access

AI summary β€” for doctors, generated from the abstract only

A meta-analysis found earlier insertable cardiac monitor implantation after ESUS or cryptogenic stroke increased AF detection and shortened time to diagnosis.

What was studied

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 47 studies (6918 patients) using meta-regression on implantation timing.

Key findings

  • Pooled AF detection 27.3%
  • Earlier implantation associated with higher detection independent of monitoring duration
  • Each day of delay added 0.32 days to time to diagnosis

Clinical relevance

Supports timely monitoring; whether earlier detection reduces recurrence is unproven.

Who should care

Neurology

Limitations

Heterogeneous observational studies.

Earlier ICM implantation improves AF detection after ESUS.

This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates β€” verify against the original source before acting on it.

Abstract

Background

The clinical utility of implantable cardiac monitors (ICMs) for atrial fibrillation (AF) detection following cryptogenic stroke or embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is well established. However, the optimal timing for ICM implantation to maximize diagnostic yield remains uncertain.

Aims

To systematically review the literature and conduct a meta-analysis to determine whether earlier ICM implantation after cryptogenic stroke or ESUS ischemic stroke improves detection rates and reduces the time to AF diagnosis.

Summary of review

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL was conducted from inception to June 2025, without language restrictions. References of retrieved articles and relevant reviews were manually searched. We included observational studies or randomized trials reporting ICM use in patients with ESUS or cryptogenic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA), providing data on AF detection rates and/or timing metrics (stroke-to-ICM interval, ICM-to-AF interval). Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. Data were extracted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Study-level AF detection rates were modeled using logit-transformed proportions and pooled using random-effects models (REML). Mixed-effects meta-regressions assessed the effect of timing (stroke-to-ICM interval) on AF detection and diagnostic delay, adjusting for ICM monitoring duration. The primary outcomes were pooled AF detection rate and mean time from ICM implantation to AF diagnosis. Timing of implantation was assessed as a continuous and categorical (early, intermediate, delayed) variable. Forty-seven studies (N = 6918 patients) were included. The pooled AF detection rate was 27.3% (95% CI: 24.6-30.2), with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 80.8%). Early ICM implantation (p = 0.0017), independent of monitoring duration. Stratified meta-regression confirmed that delayed implantation was associated with lower AF detection even after adjusting for ICM duration. For each additional day of delay in ICM implantation, the time from AF diagnosis increased by an additional 0.32 days on average, even after accounting for monitoring duration (p = 0.0007).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that earlier ICM implantation enhances AF detection after ESUS or cryptogenic stroke and shortens diagnostic delay. Optimizing timing of post-stroke monitoring may improve patient selection for anticoagulation and reduce recurrent stroke risk.CRD 420251064227.

DOI

10.1177/17474930251404336

PMID

41294253

PMCID

PMC13392177

Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.

Want more like this?

Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.

Back to the research feed

Create a free account Β· Sign in