Follow-up of Kryptogenic Stroke Patients With Implantable vs. Non-invasive Devices to Detect Atrial Fibrillation.
TRACK-AF
1 other identifier
observational
106
0 countries
N/A
Brief Summary
Prospective mono-center diagnostic study determining potential discrepancies in identifying atrial fibrillation by intraindividually comparing different types of follow-up strategies:
- 1.How many stroke patients with atrial fibrillation are missed by standard stroke unit 24h- electrocardiography, and
- 2.what is the effectiveness of the extended invasive and non-invasive ECG analysis tools to detect atrial fibrillation in stroke patients?
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for all trials
Started Mar 2013
Typical duration for all trials
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
March 1, 2013
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
December 1, 2014
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
June 1, 2015
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
December 22, 2015
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
December 29, 2015
CompletedJanuary 21, 2016
January 1, 2016
1.8 years
December 22, 2015
January 20, 2016
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (1)
To determine the prevalence of undiagnosed AF in stroke patients undergoing the diagnostic standard (24h-ECG)
Based on the obtained data, the prevalence (in percent) of undiagnosed AF in stroke patients whom AF is missed by the standard diagnostic procedure (24h-ECG) will be determined by different extensive non-invasive and invasive ECG monitoring tools
7.5 months
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Diagnostic accuracy of the automated software based ECG analysis in comparison to the "gold-standard" the implanted cardiac monitor
7.5 months
Other Outcomes (2)
Diagnostic accuracy of the automated software based ECG analysis in comparison to the standard methods (routine ECG, 24h longterm ECG)
7.5 months
Cost efficacy of the different methods (automated software based ECG analysis and implantable cardiac monitor)
7.5 months
Interventions
In patients with kryptogenic stroke, a cardiac monitor was implanted to detect atrial fibrillation
Eligibility Criteria
Patients with stroke of unknown etiology
You may qualify if:
- Patients years with acute ischemic stroke of unknown cause, monitored on a stroke unit undergoing routine diagnostic procedures (conventional 12-lead-ECG, 24h-ECG, echocardiography, cCT or cMRI, Transcranial Doppler and carotid duplex ultrasound, long-term blood pressure monitoring, standard laboratory investigations)
You may not qualify if:
- Stroke with known etiology, Stroke caused by intracranial hemorrhage
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- University Hospital Muensterlead
- European Unioncollaborator
Related Publications (2)
Bettin M, Dechering D, Kochhauser S, Bode N, Eckardt L, Frommeyer G, Reinke F. Extended ECG monitoring with an implantable loop recorder in patients with cryptogenic stroke: time schedule, reasons for explantation and incidental findings (results from the TRACK-AF trial). Clin Res Cardiol. 2019 Mar;108(3):309-314. doi: 10.1007/s00392-018-1358-4. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
PMID: 30167809DERIVEDReinke F, Bettin M, Ross LS, Kochhauser S, Kleffner I, Ritter M, Minnerup J, Dechering D, Eckardt L, Dittrich R. Refinement of detecting atrial fibrillation in stroke patients: results from the TRACK-AF Study. Eur J Neurol. 2018 Apr;25(4):631-636. doi: 10.1111/ene.13538. Epub 2018 Feb 13.
PMID: 29205690DERIVED
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Dittrich Ralf, MD
Department of Neurology, University of Muenster
Study Design
- Study Type
- observational
- Observational Model
- COHORT
- Time Perspective
- PROSPECTIVE
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
December 22, 2015
First Posted
December 29, 2015
Study Start
March 1, 2013
Primary Completion
December 1, 2014
Study Completion
June 1, 2015
Last Updated
January 21, 2016
Record last verified: 2016-01
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will not share