Effects of adopting ILR versus non-ILR on primary and secondary outcomes in patients with ischaemic stroke
| Outcomes | ILR, n/N (%) | Non-ILR, n/N (%) | Relative risk (95% CI) | Risk difference (95% CI) |
| Recurrent stroke6 7 | 22/392 (5.6) | 32/400 (8.0) | 0.70 (0.42 to 1.19) | −2% (−6% to 1%) |
| Recurrent ischaemic stroke5–7 | 35/613 (5.7) | 49/620 (7.9) | 0.72 (0.48 to 1.10) | −2% (−5% to 1%) |
| Newly detected AF5–7 | 79/613 (12.9) | 15/620 (2.4) | 5.31 (3.10 to 9.11) | 10% (8% to 13%) |
| Initiation of OACs5–7 | 93/613 (15.2) | 34/620 (5.5) | 2.77 (1.90 to 4.03) | 10% (6% to 13%) |
| All-cause mortality5–7 | 11/613 (1.8) | 17/620 (2.7) | 0.66 (0.31 to 1.40) | −1% (−3% to 1%) |
| Haemorrhagic stroke6 7 | 2/392 (0.5) | 2/400 (0.5) | 1.02 (0.14 to 7.18) | 0% (−1% to 1%) |
| Transient ischaemic attack6 7 | 10/392 (2.6) | 3/400 (0.8) | 3.37 (0.94 to 12.13) | 2% (0% to 4%) |
AF, atrial fibrillation; ILR, implantable loop recorder; OAC, oral anticoagulant.