← Back
NeuroTrials.ai
Neurology Clinical Trial Database

CATCH-AF Score

Atrial fibrillation detection after embolic stroke of undetermined source: Development and validation of the CATCH-AF score

Year of Publication: 2026

Authors: D'Anna L, Favruzzo F, Baracchini C, et al.

Journal: International Journal of Stroke

Citation: D'Anna L, et al. Int J Stroke. 2026. doi:10.1177/17474930261428118.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930261428118


Clinical Question

Can a simple clinical score predict which ESUS patients will develop atrial fibrillation on long-term implantable cardiac monitoring?

Bottom Line

The CATCH-AF score (range 0-9) reliably stratified AF risk in ESUS patients monitored with ICMs. High-risk patients (≥5 points) had a 19-fold higher hazard of AF detection versus low-risk, with an AUC of 0.85. The score remained stable over 4.5 years of follow-up and across 7 centres in internal-external cross-validation.

Major Points

  • First externally validated prediction score specifically designed for AF detection in ESUS patients with long-term ICM monitoring. Addresses a key clinical gap: which ESUS patients benefit most from prolonged cardiac monitoring.
  • 543 consecutive ESUS patients across 7 UK and Italian centres (2021-2024), with 1558.5 patient-years of ICM follow-up (median 1104 days). 118 patients (22%) developed AF.
  • CATCH-AF components derived via LASSO-penalized Cox regression: Coronary artery disease (2 points), Age ≥65 (1pt) / ≥70 (2pts) / ≥75 (3pts), previous TIA or Stroke (2 points), CHF (2 points). Total range 0-9.
  • Discrimination: AUC 0.85 (95% CI 0.82-0.89) overall, stable at 1-year (0.86), 2-year (0.85), 3-year (0.80), and 4.5-year (0.85) timepoints.
  • Risk stratification: Low risk (0-2 pts) — 5% AF rate; Medium risk (3-4 pts) — 23% AF rate, HR 4.7; High risk (≥5 pts) — 65% AF rate, HR 19.2 (95% CI 9.4-39.4, p<0.001) vs low risk.
  • High-risk patients experienced 918 fewer AF-free survival days compared to low-risk patients, highlighting a dramatically accelerated time to AF detection.
  • Internal-external cross-validation (leave-one-centre-out) demonstrated robust generalizability with pooled AUC 0.84 and well-calibrated predictions across geographically diverse centres.

Design

Study Type: Retrospective, multicentre, observational cohort

Randomization:

Blinding: Not applicable (observational)

Enrollment Period: 2021-2024

Follow-up Duration: Median 1104 days (1558.5 patient-years)

Centers: 7

Countries: United Kingdom, Italy

Sample Size: 543

Analysis: LASSO-penalized Cox proportional hazards regression with internal-external cross-validation


Inclusion Criteria

  • Diagnosis of embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) per ESUS criteria
  • Implantable cardiac monitor (ICM) inserted for AF detection
  • Consecutive patients at 7 participating centres (5 UK, 2 Italy)
  • Enrolled between 2021 and 2024

Exclusion Criteria

  • Known atrial fibrillation prior to ICM insertion
  • Incomplete baseline clinical data
  • Lost to follow-up before first ICM interrogation

Arms

FieldSingle observational cohort
InterventionAll patients received ICM insertion after ESUS diagnosis with protocolized follow-up and remote monitoring for AF detection
DurationMedian 1104 days

Outcomes

OutcomeTypeControlInterventionHR / OR / RRP-value
New AF detected during ICM follow-upPrimary<0.001
Model discrimination (AUC)Secondary
Medium vs Low riskSecondary4.7<0.001
AF-free survival difference (High vs Low)Secondary

Subgroup Analysis

Internal-external cross-validation across 7 centres showed pooled AUC 0.84 with consistent calibration. Score performed similarly in UK (5 centres) and Italian (2 centres) subgroups.


Criticisms

  • Retrospective design — inherent risk of selection and information bias
  • Moderate sample size (N=543) limits power for rare subgroup analyses
  • Geographically limited to UK and Italy — generalizability to non-European populations unknown
  • No comparison with existing AF prediction scores (e.g., CHA₂DS₂-VASc, HAVOC) in the same cohort
  • ICM monitoring protocols may vary across centres, potentially affecting AF detection rates
  • No prospective validation — score needs testing in a real-world implementation study before clinical adoption

Funding

Not industry-funded. No specific funding source disclosed.

Based on: CATCH-AF Score (International Journal of Stroke, 2026)

Authors: D'Anna L, Favruzzo F, Baracchini C, et al.

Citation: D'Anna L, et al. Int J Stroke. 2026. doi:10.1177/17474930261428118.

Content summarized and formatted by NeuroTrials.ai.