P5740ACE2 activity level is associated with embolic stroke of undetermined source

Background

ACE2 activity levels correlate with adverse left atrial remodelling in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Several biochemical and structural markers have been associated with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). The relationship between ACE2 activity and ESUS is unknown.

Purpose

Randomised controlled trials failed to demonstrate a clear benefit of oral anticoagulation in an unselected ESUS population. As selective use of oral anticoagulation guided by biomarker risk-profiling may benefit these patients, we evaluated the association between ACE2 activity and ESUS.

Methods

This prospective case control study compared patients with ESUS against a control group matched for vascular risk factors. ESUS was diagnosed following cerebral vascular imaging and 24 hours of cardiac monitoring to exclude AF. Blood samples were collected for measurement of ACE2 activity, D-Dimer and high sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT).

Results

A total of 51 patients in the ESUS group were compared with 47 patients in the Control group. ACE2 activity and D-Dimer levels were significantly higher in the ESUS group. There was a significant but weak positive correlation between ACE2 activity and hsTnT (r=0.20, p<0.05). Left atrial volume index (LAVI) on echocardiography was significantly higher in the ESUS group. On regression modelling adjusting for LAVI, only ACE2 activity remained significant for ESUS, with a 20% rise in odds for every 4 unit increase in ACE2 activity (OR 1.20; 95% CI: 1.01 - 1.36, p=0.04).

Participant characteristics Control (n=47) ESUS (n=51) P value Age (years) 65.65±6.78 67.20±6.89 0.26 Female gender 22 (45.8) 19 (38.0) 0.43 Hypertension 22 (45.8) 24 (48.0) 0.83 Diabetes mellitus 9 (18.8) 12 (24.0) 0.53 CHA2DS2VASc score 2 (1–3) 2 (1–3) 0.50 LA size & Biomarkers   LA volume index (ml/m2) 36.5 (32.6–42.5) 39.1 (36.2–46.0) 0.04   ACE2 (pmol/ml/min) 7.24 (2.66–14.64) 10.16 (4.54–18.80) 0.04   D-Dimer (mg/L) 0.35 (0.3–0.5) 0.40 (0.30–0.60) 0.02   hsTroponin T (ng/L) 7.0 (5–10) 9.00 (6.0–13.5) 0.05 Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (IQR), or n (%).

Median ACE2 activity

Conclusion(s)

ACE2 activity is associated with ESUS independent of left atrial volume and correlate with elevated Troponin. Further studies are warranted to investigate the utility of ACE2 activity in identifying ESUS patients that may benefit from oral anticoagulation.

Acknowledgement/Funding

This study received project funding from the Eastern Health Foundation

P574Accuracy of wrist-worn heart rate monitors for chronotropic assessment in atrial fibrillation

Introduction

Wrist-worn fitness and heart rate (HR) monitors are increasingly popular. Previous studies in healthy participants with sinus rhythm (SR) have yielded variable results depending on HR, activity levels and device tested. A paucity of data exists on their accuracy in atrial fibrillation (AF) in ambulatory patients.

Purpose

We sought to assess the HR accuracy of 2 commercially available smart watches (Fitbit Charge HR [FB] and Apple Watch Series 3 [AW]) compared with Holter monitoring in an ambulant patient cohort.

Methods

Patients aged >18 years referred for 24-hour Holter monitoring were prospectively recruited. The Holter monitor was the criterion measure. Each patient was randomly allocated to either a FB or AW along with their Holter monitor. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board.

Statistical analysis: Pearson (r) correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman comparison with 95% limits of agreement (LoA) were evaluated to assess criterion validity and agreement between the smart watch and Holter ECG-HR. Bias was the calculated mean difference between the smart watch and ECG-HR. A ± 10-beat different between Holter-HR and SW-HR was used as a clinically relevant range to establish the accuracy of HR estimation by SW.

Results

Across all devices, 53,288 hear rate values were recorded from 32 patients. Twenty six patients were in persistent AF and six were in SR. Twelve patients wore the FB while 20 wore the AW. In the FB arm, nice patient were in persistent AF and three in SR. In the AW arm, persistent AF was the rhythm in seventeen and SR in three. Patients in SR demonstrated overall strong agreement compared to Holter monitoring (Mean Bias <1 beat, LoA −11 to 11 beats) and a correlation coefficient of 0.87 (p<0.001). In AF, both devices underestimated HR measurements (Overall Bias −9 beats, LoA −41 to 23, r=0.60, p<0.001). The AW had lower bias and narrower LoA compared to FB (−5 beats vs −13 beats, LoA −31 to 21 beats vs −50 to 22 beats). Using a ± 10-beat range against ECG-HR for clinical accuracy, both the AW and FB performed satisfactorily in SR with 95.2% of AW and 92.2% of FB HR readings considered valid. In AF, however, the AW-HR readings were within the ± 10-beat threshold in 76.5% of the time compared with only 56.1% of FB readings.

Conclusion

In ambulatory patients, smart watches were accurate in HR estimation when compared to Holter monitor in SR; however tended to underestimate HR in AF. Further improvements in device technology are needed before the widespread consumer adoption of this nascent technology for chronotropic assessment in arrhythmias.