Suppr超能文献

抗血小板与抗凝治疗夹层:CADISS 非随机分组研究及其荟萃分析。

Antiplatelets vs anticoagulation for dissection: CADISS nonrandomized arm and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Stroke and Dementia Research Centre, St George’s University of London, London, UK.

出版信息

Neurology. 2012 Aug 14;79(7):686-9. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318264e36b. Epub 2012 Aug 1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To present the results of the nonrandomized arm of the Cervical Artery Dissection in Stroke Study (CADISS-NR) trial, comparing anticoagulation and antiplatelets for prevention of recurrent stroke after carotid and vertebral dissection, and perform a meta-analysis of these results with previously published studies comparing the 2 therapeutic strategies.

METHODS

A total of 88 patients from 22 centers with extracranial carotid and vertebral dissection were recruited within 1 month of symptom onset. The primary endpoint was recurrent stroke at 3 months. A systematic review was performed, and results of published studies included in a meta-analysis with the CADISS-NR results.

RESULTS

In CADISS-NR, one patient in each group had recurrent ischemic stroke (antiplatelet 1/59 [1.69% ], anticoagulation 1/28 [3.57%]). At the primary endpoint of 3 months, 3 (5.08%) antiplatelet patients had recurrent TIA, compared with none in the anticoagulation group. For meta-analysis, there were data from 40 nonrandomized studies including 1,636 patients. There was no significant difference between the 2 treatments in recurrent stroke risk (antiplatelet 13/499 [2.6%], anticoagulant 20/1,137 [1.8%], odds ratio [OR] 1.49) or risk of death (antiplatelet 5/499 [1.00%], anticoagulant 9/1,137 [0.80%], OR 1.27).

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence for superiority of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy in prevention of stoke after carotid and vertebral artery dissection; however, all data are from nonrandomized studies and randomized studies are required. The nonrandomized CADISS data show a lower rate of recurrent stroke than reported in some previous studies.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION

www.dissection.co.uk, ISRNCTN44555237.

摘要

目的

介绍颈内动脉夹层研究(CADISS-NR)试验非随机臂的结果,比较抗凝和抗血小板治疗预防颅外颈动脉和椎动脉夹层后再发卒中,并对这两种治疗策略的先前发表的研究进行荟萃分析。

方法

共有 22 个中心的 88 例患者在症状发作后 1 个月内入组。主要终点是 3 个月时的复发性卒中。进行了系统评价,并对包括在 CADISS-NR 结果中的荟萃分析中包含的已发表研究的结果进行了分析。

结果

在 CADISS-NR 中,每组各有 1 例患者发生复发性缺血性卒中(抗血小板组 1/59 [1.69%],抗凝组 1/28 [3.57%])。在 3 个月的主要终点时,3 例(5.08%)抗血小板患者发生了复发性 TIA,而抗凝组无患者发生。对于荟萃分析,有 40 项非随机研究的数据包括 1636 例患者。两种治疗方法在复发性卒中风险方面无显著差异(抗血小板组 13/499 [2.6%],抗凝组 20/1137 [1.8%],比值比 [OR] 1.49)或死亡风险(抗血小板组 5/499 [1.00%],抗凝组 9/1137 [0.80%],OR 1.27)。

结论

没有证据表明抗凝或抗血小板治疗在预防颈动脉和椎动脉夹层后卒中方面具有优势;然而,所有数据均来自非随机研究,需要进行随机研究。非随机 CADISS 数据显示复发性卒中的发生率低于一些先前研究报告的发生率。

临床试验注册信息

www.dissection.co.uk,ISRNCTN44555237。

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