Camelia Valhuerdi Porto
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Camelia Valhuerdi Porto has a total of 78 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Adam de Havenon
Department of Neurology, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT (A.d.H.).
2 shared publications - Anna Bowman
University of Colorado
2 shared publications - Brian Stamm
Department of Neurology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
2 shared publications - Christoph Stretz
Brown University
2 shared publications - Collin J. Culbertson
Department of Neurology, Lahey Medical Center, Burlington, MA (C.C.).
2 shared publications - Deborah Kerrigan
Vanderbilt University
2 shared publications
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 15 September 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of the American Heart Association
- Vol. 15 (18)
Comprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation and Risk of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Introducing the Concept of ESUS 2.0
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.
- 15 September 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of the American Heart Association
- Vol. 15 (18)
Open AccessComprehensive Diagnostic Evaluation and Risk of Recurrent Stroke After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: Introducing the Concept of ESUS 2.0
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.
- 1 August 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurology Clinical Practice
- Vol. 16 (4) , e200631
Real-World Practice in Secondary Stroke Prevention Following Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source
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...
- 1 August 2026
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Neurology Clinical Practice
- Vol. 16 (4) , e200631
Real-World Practice in Secondary Stroke Prevention Following Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source
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...