ABAnna Bowman

Anna Bowman

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Anna Bowman has a total of 89 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    Comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation and Risk of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Introducing the Concept of ESUS 2.0

    by Farhan Khan, Christoph Stretz, Skylar Lewis, Dalia Chahien, Eric Goldstein, James E. Siegler, Christina M. Lineback, Kelsey Eklund, Farid Khasiyev, Sami Al Kasab, et al.

    Background: Although the embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) construct was proposed as a unifying concept for embolic‐appearing strokes without an identified cause, it includes patients with diverse and often unrecognized underlying mechanisms. This study investigates the differential rate of recurrent stroke according to the completeness of neurodiagnostic testing in a diverse multicenter cohort. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter observational cohort study (n=27 sites). ESUS was categorized into 3 groups: (1) established mechanism after further workup (ESUS‐E), (2) comprehensive diagnostic workup without an identified cause (ESUS 2.0), and (3) no advanced workup. The primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke was compared between ESUS with established mechanism and ESUS 2.0 versus ESUS with no advanced workup and was assessed using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Among 2281 patients, the mean age was 65 years, and 50.1% were men. 694 (30.4%) classified as ESUS‐E, 1,243 (54.5%) classified as ESUS‐NAW, and 344 (15.1%) as ESUS 2.0. The ESUS 2.0 group had a significantly lower risk of recurrent stroke than both the group with ESUS with no advanced workup (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13–0.76]) and the group with ESUS with established mechanism (aHR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.15–0.85]). Within the group with ESUS with established mechanism, cancer (aHR, 5.33 [95% CI, 2.09–13.63]) and nonstenosing atherosclerotic disease or arch atheroma (aHR, 3.40 [95% CI, 1.18–9.83]) were associated with significantly increased risk of recurrence when compared with the group with ESUS 2.0. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a lower risk of recurrent stroke in patients classified as ESUS 2.0 than reported in prior ESUS trials and highlight the importance of age‐appropriate advanced diagnostic evaluation. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Identifier: NCT06398366.

  • Real-World Practice in Secondary Stroke Prevention Following Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source

    by Hassan Aboul-Nour, James Ernest Siegler, Sean L. Thompson, Patrick A. Glover, Jean-Philippe Auguste Daniel, Mary Penckofer, Matthew M. Smith, Shadi Yaghi, Jennifer Ro, Lucia Chen, et al.

    Background and ObjectivesMultiple clinical trials have failed to show benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelets in preventing recurrent stroke among patients with embolic stroke of undetermined...

  • Recurrent Stroke in Patients With Cryptogenic Stroke and Left Ventricular Injury: The Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence (CASPR) Study

    by Richa Sharma, Katelyn F. McNamara, Elena Badillo Goicoechea, Anna Bowman, Russell Van Coevering, Lucia Chen, Mary Penckofer, Eesha Singh, Deborah Kerrigan, Hassan Aboul-Nour, et al.

    BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is a potential cardioembolic source of ischemic stroke, but its role in recurrent stroke risk and treatment response remains unclear. We explore whether LV injury associates with the risk of recurrent stroke and modifies the association between anticoagulation and stroke recurrence using real-world data. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort across 27 US sites. Patients with LV ejection fraction ≥20% were included. LV injury, defined as LV ejection fraction 20% to 40% and wall motion abnormality, was the primary exposure and treatment effect modifier. The treatment of interest was anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. The composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Outcomes were evaluated using unadjusted and inverse probability weighting adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, with treatment effect modification tested by LV injury status. RESULTS: Among 2685 patients enrolled, 2328 with complete data were analyzed (median age, 65 years; 49.8% female; median follow-up, 1.6 years). LV injury was present in 310 patients (13.3%). Overall, 535 events occurred: 258 recurrent ischemic strokes, 28 hemorrhagic strokes, 67 major hemorrhages, and 256 deaths. LV injury was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.21–1.87]), though nonsignificant after inverse probability weighting adjustment (adjusted HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.97–1.70]). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10–0.59]), relative to the non-LV injury subgroup (adjusted HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.83–1.95]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001). Similar interactions were seen for EF 20% to 40% (versus >40%; adjusted HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04–0.86]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001) and wall motion abnormality (versus no wall motion abnormality; adjusted HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.15–0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: After cryptogenic stroke, anticoagulation in those with LV injury was associated with lower rates of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, and death. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT06398366.