From the Stroke Unit and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Perugia, Italy (R.A., V.C., G.A., C.B., A.A., M.V., M.A., C.D., M.G.M., L.A.C., J.F., M.P.).
Department of Neurology, Ospedale San Paolo, Savona, Italy (F.B.).
Stroke. 2019 Aug;50(8):2093-2100. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.022856. Epub 2019 Jun 21.
Background and Purpose- Bridging therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin reportedly leads to a worse outcome for acute cardioembolic stroke patients because of a higher incidence of intracerebral bleeding. However, this practice is common in clinical settings. This observational study aimed to compare (1) the clinical profiles of patients receiving and not receiving bridging therapy, (2) overall group outcomes, and (3) outcomes according to the type of anticoagulant prescribed. Methods- We analyzed data of patients from the prospective RAF and RAF-NOACs studies. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, symptomatic cerebral bleeding, and major extracerebral bleeding observed at 90 days after the acute stroke. Results- Of 1810 patients who initiated oral anticoagulant therapy, 371 (20%) underwent bridging therapy with full-dose low-molecular-weight heparin. Older age and the presence of leukoaraiosis were inversely correlated with the use of bridging therapy. Forty-two bridged patients (11.3%) reached the combined outcome versus 72 (5.0%) of the nonbridged patients (P=0.0001). At multivariable analysis, bridging therapy was associated with the composite end point (odds ratio, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P<0.0001), as well as ischemic (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.3-3.9; P=0.005) and hemorrhagic (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.9; P=0.01) end points separately. Conclusions- Our findings suggest that patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin have a higher risk of early ischemic recurrence and hemorrhagic transformation compared with nonbridged patients.
背景与目的-据报道,急性心源性脑栓塞患者接受低分子肝素桥接治疗会导致更差的结果,因为颅内出血的发生率更高。然而,这种做法在临床实践中很常见。本观察性研究旨在比较:(1)接受和不接受桥接治疗的患者的临床特征;(2)总体预后;(3)根据所开抗凝药物的类型的预后。方法-我们分析了前瞻性 RAF 和 RAF-NOACs 研究的患者数据。主要结局定义为急性卒中后 90 天观察到的缺血性卒中、短暂性脑缺血发作、系统性栓塞、症状性脑内出血和主要脑外出血的复合事件。结果-在 1810 例开始口服抗凝治疗的患者中,371 例(20%)接受了全剂量低分子肝素的桥接治疗。年龄较大和存在白质疏松症与桥接治疗的使用呈负相关。42 例桥接患者(11.3%)达到了复合结局,而 72 例(5.0%)非桥接患者达到了(P=0.0001)。多变量分析表明,桥接治疗与复合终点相关(优势比,2.3;95%可信区间,1.4-3.7;P<0.0001),以及缺血性(优势比,2.2;95%可信区间,1.3-3.9;P=0.005)和出血性(优势比,2.4;95%可信区间,1.2-4.9;P=0.01)终点。结论-我们的研究结果表明,与非桥接患者相比,接受低分子肝素治疗的患者有更高的早期缺血性复发和出血性转化风险。