Clinical and Genetic Atrial Fibrillation Risk and Discrimination of Cardioembolic From Noncardioembolic Stroke
Lu-Chen Weng, Shaan Khurshid, Sophia Gunn, Ludovic Trinquart, Kathryn L. Lunetta, Huichun Xu, Emelia J. Benjamin, Patrick T. Ellinor, Christopher D. Anderson, Steven A. Lubitz,- Advanced and Specialized Nursing
- Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
- Neurology (clinical)
BACKGROUND:
Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cause of stroke but may not be detectable at the time of stroke. We hypothesized that an AF polygenic risk score (PRS) can discriminate between cardioembolic stroke and noncardioembolic strokes.
METHODS:
We evaluated AF and stroke risk in 26 145 individuals of European descent from the Stroke Genetics Network case-control study. AF genetic risk was estimated using 3 recently developed PRS methods (LDpred-funct-inf, sBayesR, and PRS-CS) and 2 previously validated PRSs. We performed logistic regression of each AF PRS on AF status and separately cardioembolic stroke, adjusting for clinical risk score (CRS), imputation group, and principal components. We calculated model discrimination of AF and cardioembolic stroke using the concordance statistic (c-statistic) and compared c-statistics using 2000-iteration bootstrapping. We also assessed reclassification of cardioembolic stroke with the addition of PRS to either CRS or a modified CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score alone.
RESULTS:
Each AF PRS was significantly associated with AF and with cardioembolic stroke after adjustment for CRS. Addition of each AF PRS significantly improved discrimination as compared with CRS alone ( P <0.01). When combined with the CRS, both PRS-CS and LDpred scores discriminated both AF and cardioembolic stroke (c-statistic 0.84 for AF; 0.74 for cardioembolic stroke) better than 3 other PRS scores ( P <0.01). Using PRS-CS PRS and CRS in combination resulted in more appropriate reclassification of stroke events as compared with CRS alone (event reclassification [net reclassification indices] + =14% [95% CI, 10%–18%]; nonevent reclassification [net reclassification indices] − =17% [95% CI, 15%–0.19%]) or the modified CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score (net reclassification indices + =11% [95% CI, 7%–15%]; net reclassification indices − =14% [95% CI, 12%–16%]) alone.
CONCLUSIONS:
Addition of polygenic risk of AF to clinical risk factors modestly improves the discrimination of cardioembolic from noncardioembolic strokes, as well as reclassification of stroke subtype. Polygenic risk of AF may be a useful biomarker for identifying strokes caused by AF.