Diener Hans-Christoph, Hankey Graeme J, Easton J Donald, Lip Gregory Y H, Hart Robert G, Caso Valeria
Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty of the University Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstrasse 55, Essen 45147, Germany.
Medical School, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, 6009 Perth, Australia.
Eur Heart J Suppl. 2020 Sep 15;22(Suppl I):I13-I21. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/suaa104. eCollection 2020 Sep.
The aims of this article are to review the evidence regarding the use of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for secondary stroke prevention as compared to vitamin K antagonists in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and in patients with embolic strokes of uncertain source (ESUS), and when to initiate or resume anticoagulation after an ischaemic stroke or intracranial haemorrhage. Four large trials compared NOACs with warfarin in patients with AF. In our meta-analyses, the rate of all stroke or systemic embolism (SE) was 4.94% with NOACs vs. 5.73% with warfarin. Among the patients with AF and previous transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke, the rate of haemorrhagic stroke was halved with a NOAC vs. warfarin, and the rate of major bleeding was 5.7% with a NOAC vs. 6.4% with warfarin. There was no significant difference in mortality. In a trial comparing apixaban with aspirin in patients with AF, the rate of stroke or SE was 2.4% at 1 year with apixaban vs. 9.2% at 1 year with aspirin and the rates of major bleeding were 4.1% with apixaban vs. 2.9% with aspirin. Data from registries confirmed the results from the randomized trials. Initiation or resumption of anticoagulation after ischaemic stroke or cerebral haemorrhage depends on the size and severity of stroke and the risk of recurrent bleeding. Two large trials tested the hypothesis that NOACs are more effective than 100 mg aspirin in patients with ESUS. Neither trial showed a significant benefit of the NOAC over aspirin. In the meta-analysis, the rate all stroke or SE was 4.94% with NOACs vs. 5.73% with warfarin and the rate of haemorrhagic stroke was halved with a NOAC. The four NOACs had broadly similar efficacy for the major outcomes in secondary stroke prevention.
本文旨在回顾关于在心房颤动(AF)患者和不明来源栓塞性卒中(ESUS)患者中,与维生素K拮抗剂相比,使用非维生素K口服抗凝剂(NOACs)进行二级卒中预防的证据,以及在缺血性卒中或颅内出血后何时开始或恢复抗凝治疗。四项大型试验比较了AF患者中NOACs与华法林的疗效。在我们的荟萃分析中,使用NOACs时所有卒中或全身性栓塞(SE)的发生率为4.94%,而使用华法林时为5.73%。在有AF且既往有短暂性脑缺血发作或缺血性卒中的患者中,与华法林相比,使用NOACs时出血性卒中的发生率减半,使用NOACs时大出血的发生率为5.7%,而使用华法林时为6.4%。死亡率无显著差异。在一项比较阿哌沙班与阿司匹林治疗AF患者的试验中,阿哌沙班治疗1年时卒中或SE的发生率为2.4%,而阿司匹林治疗1年时为9.2%,阿哌沙班的大出血发生率为4.1%,而阿司匹林为2.9%。登记处的数据证实了随机试验的结果。缺血性卒中或脑出血后抗凝治疗的开始或恢复取决于卒中的大小和严重程度以及再出血的风险。两项大型试验检验了NOACs在ESUS患者中比100mg阿司匹林更有效的假设。两项试验均未显示NOACs比阿司匹林有显著益处。在荟萃分析中,使用NOACs时所有卒中或SE的发生率为4.94%,而使用华法林时为5.73%,使用NOACs时出血性卒中的发生率减半。四种NOACs在二级卒中预防的主要结局方面疗效大致相似。