American Society of Hirudotherapy

Atrial Fibrillation Detected before or after Stroke: Role of Anticoagulation

Research article published in Annals of neurology (2023)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Research reportClinical TrialsLyrer et al. · Annals of neurology, 2023

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) known before ischemic stroke (KAF) has been postulated to be an independent category with a recurrence risk higher than that of AF detected after stroke (AFDAS). However, it is unknown whether this risk difference is confounded by pre-existing anticoagulation, which is most common in KAF and also indicates a high ischemic stroke recurrence risk. METHODS: Individual patient data analysis from 5 prospective cohorts of anticoagulated patients following AF-associated ischemic stroke. We compared the primary (ischemic stroke recurrence) and secondary outcome (all-cause death) among patients with AFDAS versus KAF and among anticoagulation-naïve versus previously anticoagulated patients using multivariable Cox, Fine-Gray models, and goodness-of-fit statistics to investigate the relative independent prognostic importance of AF-category and pre-existing anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 4,357 patients, 1,889 (43%) had AFDAS and 2,468 (57%) had KAF, while 3,105 (71%) were anticoagulation-naïve before stroke and 1,252 (29%) were previously anticoagulated. During 6,071 patient-years of follow-up, we observed 244 recurrent strokes and 661 deaths. Only pre-existing anticoagulation (but not KAF) was independently associated with a higher hazard for stroke recurrence in both Cox and Fine-Gray models. Models incorporating pre-existing anticoagulation showed better fit than those with AF category; adding AF-category did not result in better model fit. Neither pre-existing anticoagulation nor KAF were independently associated with death. CONCLUSION: Our findings challenge the notion that KAF and AFDAS are clinically relevant and distinct prognostic entities. Instead of attributing an independently high stroke recurrence risk to KAF, future research should focus on the causes of stroke despite anticoagulation to develop improved preventive treatments. ANN NEUROL 2023;94:43-54.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAtrial FibrillationProspective StudiesRisk FactorsStrokeIschemic StrokeAnticoagulants

Summary

Peer-reviewed clinical and outcomes research relevant to anticoagulation, leech therapy, and microsurgical flap management. Indexed in PubMed and verified against the NCBI record.

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

Pooling individual patient data from five prospective cohorts of 4,357 anticoagulated patients after AF-associated ischemic stroke, this analysis found that pre-existing anticoagulation (not the timing of AF detection before vs after stroke) was independently associated with higher recurrent-stroke risk, challenging the idea that 'known AF' and 'AF detected after stroke' are distinct prognostic entities. For ASH it documents that systemic anticoagulants do not fully prevent recurrent thrombotic events, part of the broader unmet-need context motivating interest in novel antithrombotic mechanisms, including molecules in the leech secretome. Caveat: this is an observational cohort analysis of systemic oral anticoagulation in stroke prevention; it has no connection to leeches or hirudotherapy and carries the usual confounding limits of non-randomized data.

Citation

Atrial Fibrillation Detected before or after Stroke: Role of Anticoagulation.

Lyrer et al. · Annals of neurology, 2023

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.