Suppr超能文献

口服抗凝药与抗血小板治疗对预防短暂性脑缺血发作或疑似动脉源性轻度卒中后进一步血管事件的比较

Oral anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy for preventing further vascular events after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin.

作者信息

Algra A, de Schryver E L, van Gijn J, Kappelle L J, Koudstaal P J

机构信息

Julius Center for General Practice and Patient Oriented Research / Univ. Department of Neurology, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, Utrecht, Netherlands, 3508 GA.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(4):CD001342. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001342.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patients who are entered in clinical trials after a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or non disabling ischaemic stroke have an annual risk of important vascular events (death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, or non-fatal myocardial infarction) of between 4 and 11 percent. Aspirin, in a daily dose of 30mg or more, offers only modest protection after cerebral ischaemia: it reduces the incidence of major vascular events by 20 percent at most. Secondary prevention trials after myocardial infarction indicate that treatment with oral anticoagulants is associated with a risk reduction approximately twice that of treatment with antiplatelet therapy.

OBJECTIVES

  1. To compare the efficacy of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of vascular events after cerebral ischaemia of presumed arterial origin. 2) To compare the safety of oral anticoagulants and antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of vascular events after cerebral ischaemia of presumed arterial origin.

SEARCH STRATEGY

This review draws on the search strategy developed for the Stroke Group as a whole. Relevant trials were identified in the Specialised Register of Controlled Trials (last searched: June 2000). Authors of published trials were contacted for further information and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials with concealed treatment allocation on long term (> 6 months) secondary prevention after recent (< 6 months) TIA or minor ischaemic stroke of presumed arterial origin were selected. The oral anticoagulant therapy was to be of specified intensity (by means of the International Normalised Ratio (INR)) with warfarin, phenprocoumon or acenocoumarol versus a single antiplatelet drug (or combination of antiplatelet agents).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers selected trials meeting the inclusion criteria and extracted details of randomisation methods, blinding of treatments and assessments, whether intention-to-treat analysis is possible from the published data, whether treatment groups are comparable with regard to major prognostic risk factors for outcomes, the number of patients who are excluded or lost to follow-up, definition of outcomes, and entry and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of each trial was assessed by the two reviewers using these extracted data. In addition, target INR for anticoagulant treatment and dose and type of antiplatelet drug, duration of follow-up and the numbers of defined outcome events was recorded. The data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Subgroup analyses with treatment INR 2.1 - 3.6 versus INR 3.0 - 4.5 was performed. Relative and absolute risk reductions were calculated by means of the statistical software provided by the Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials, with a total of 1870 patients were selected. In the prevention of ischaemic stroke after cerebral ischaemia of presumed arterial origin, the available data do not allow a robust conclusion on whether anticoagulants (in any intensity) are more efficacious than antiplatelet therapy (low intensity anticoagulation RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.42, high intensity anticoagulation RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.13). Treatment with anticoagulation INR 2.1 - 3.6 does not give an importantly higher bleeding risk than treatment with antiplatelet agents (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.41). It is clear that oral anticoagulants INR 3.0 - 4.5 are not safe, because they yield a higher risk of major bleeding complications (RR 9.0, 95% CI 3.9 to 21).

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: For the secondary prevention of further vascular events after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin, there is insufficient evidence to justify the routine use of low intensity oral anticoagulants (INR 2.0 - 3.6). More intense anticoagulation (INR 3.0 - 4.5) is not safe and should not be used in this setting.

摘要

背景

短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)或非致残性缺血性卒中后进入临床试验的患者,每年发生重大血管事件(所有血管原因导致的死亡、非致命性卒中或非致命性心肌梗死)的风险为4%至11%。每日剂量30毫克或以上的阿司匹林在脑缺血后仅提供适度的保护:它最多可将重大血管事件的发生率降低20%。心肌梗死后的二级预防试验表明,口服抗凝剂治疗降低风险的幅度约为抗血小板治疗的两倍。

目的

1)比较口服抗凝剂和抗血小板治疗对推测为动脉源性脑缺血后血管事件的二级预防效果。2)比较口服抗凝剂和抗血小板治疗对推测为动脉源性脑缺血后血管事件的二级预防安全性。

检索策略

本综述借鉴了为整个卒中组制定的检索策略。在Cochrane对照试验专业注册库(最后检索时间:2000年6月)中识别相关试验。已发表试验的作者被联系以获取更多信息和未发表的数据。

选择标准

选择对近期(<6个月)推测为动脉源性TIA或轻度缺血性卒中进行长期(>6个月)二级预防且采用隐匿性治疗分配的随机试验。口服抗凝剂治疗采用华法林、苯丙香豆素或醋硝香豆素的特定强度(通过国际标准化比值(INR)),与单一抗血小板药物(或抗血小板药物组合)进行比较。

数据收集与分析

两名综述作者选择符合纳入标准的试验,并提取随机化方法、治疗和评估的盲法、是否可从已发表数据进行意向性分析、治疗组在结局主要预后危险因素方面是否可比、排除或失访的患者数量、结局定义以及纳入和排除标准的详细信息。两名综述作者使用这些提取的数据评估每个试验的方法学质量。此外,记录抗凝治疗的目标INR以及抗血小板药物的剂量和类型、随访时间和已定义结局事件的数量。数据根据意向性分析原则进行分析。进行了治疗INR 2.1 - 3.6与INR 3.0 - 4.5的亚组分析。相对和绝对风险降低率通过Cochrane协作网提供的统计软件计算。

主要结果

共选择了四项试验,总计1870例患者。在预防推测为动脉源性脑缺血后的缺血性卒中方面,现有数据无法就抗凝剂(任何强度)是否比抗血小板治疗更有效得出有力结论(低强度抗凝RR 0.96,95%CI 0.38至2.42,高强度抗凝RR 1.02,95%CI 0.49至2.13)。INR 2.1 - 3.6的抗凝治疗出血风险并不比抗血小板药物治疗显著更高(RR 1.19,95%CI 0.59至2.41)。显然,INR 3.0 - 4.5的口服抗凝剂不安全,因为它们会导致更高的严重出血并发症风险(RR 9.0,95%CI 3.9至21)。

综述作者结论

对于推测为动脉源性短暂性脑缺血发作或轻度卒中后进一步血管事件的二级预防,没有足够证据证明常规使用低强度口服抗凝剂(INR 2.0 - 3.6)是合理的。更强的抗凝治疗(INR 3.0 - 4.5)不安全,不应在此情况下使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验