Background: and Purpose Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) underlying acute stroke frequently evades detection by standard practice, considered to be a combination of routine electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring, and 24-hour Holter recordings. We hypothesized that nurse-led in-hospital intermittent monitoring approach would increase PAF detection rate. Methods: We recruited patients hospitalised for stroke/transient ischemic attack, without history of atrial fibrillation (AF), in a prospective multi-centre observational study. Patients were monitored using a smartphone-enabled handheld ECG (iECG) during routine nursing observations, and underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring according to local practice. The primary outcome was comparison of AF detection by nurse-led iECG versus Holter monitoring in patients who received both tests: secondary outcome was oral anticoagulant commencement at 3-month following PAF detection. Results: One thousand and seventy-nine patients underwent iECG monitoring: 294 had iECG and Holter monitoring. AF was detected in 25/294 (8.5%) by iECG, and 8/294 (2.8%) by 24-hour Holter recordings (P<0.001). Median duration from stroke onset to AF detection for iECG was 3 days (interquartile range [IQR], 2 to 6) compared with 7 days (IQR, 6 to 10) for Holter recordings (P=0.02). Of 25 patients with AF detected by iECG, 11 were commenced on oral anticoagulant, compared to 5/8 for Holter. AF was detected in 8.8% (69/785 patients) who underwent iECG recordings only (P=0.8 vs. those who had both iECG and 24-hour Holter). Conclusions Nurse-led in-hospital iECG surveillance after stroke is feasible and effective and detects more PAF earlier and more frequently than routine 24-hour Holter recordings. Screening with iECG could be incorporated into routine post-stroke nursing observations to increase diagnosis of PAF, and facilitate institution of guideline-recommended anticoagulation.

We aim to evaluate prostate health index as an additional risk-stratification tool in patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 3 lesions on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. Men with biochemical or clinical suspicion of having prostate cancer who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in two tertiary centers (Queen Mary Hospital and Princess Margaret Hospital, Hong Kong, China) between January 2017 and June 2022 were included. Ultrasound-magnetic resonance imaging fusion biopsies were performed after prostate health index testing. Those who only had Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 3 lesions were further stratified into four prostate health index risk groups and the cancer detection rates were analyzed. Out of the 747 patients, 47.3% had Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 3 lesions only. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer in this group was 15.0%. The cancer detection rates of clinically significant prostate cancer had statistically significant differences: 5.3% in prostate health index <25.0, 7.4% in prostate health index 25.0-34.9, 17.9% in prostate health index 35.0-54.9, and 52.6% in prostate health index ≥55.0 (P < 0.01). Among the patients, 26.9% could have avoided a biopsy with a prostate health index <25.0, at the expense of a 5.3% risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer. Prostate health index could be used as an additional risk stratification tool for patients with Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System score 3 lesions. Biopsies could be avoided in patients with low prostate health index, with a small risk of missing clinically significant prostate cancer.