Suppr超能文献

阿司匹林与抗凝治疗在颈动脉夹层(TREAT-CAD)中的比较:一项开放标签、随机、非劣效性试验。

Aspirin versus anticoagulation in cervical artery dissection (TREAT-CAD): an open-label, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

机构信息

Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, University Hospital for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Neurology and Neurorehabilitation, University Hospital for Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

出版信息

Lancet Neurol. 2021 May;20(5):341-350. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(21)00044-2. Epub 2021 Mar 23.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cervical artery dissection is a major cause of stroke in young people (aged <50 years). Historically, clinicians have preferred using oral anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists for patients with cervical artery dissection, although some current guidelines-based on available evidence from mostly observational studies-suggest using aspirin. If proven to be non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists, aspirin might be preferable, due to its ease of use and lower cost. We aimed to test the non-inferiority of aspirin to vitamin K antagonists in patients with cervical artery dissection.

METHODS

We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial in ten stroke centres across Switzerland, Germany, and Denmark. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged older than 18 years who had symptomatic, MRI-verified, cervical artery dissection within 2 weeks before enrolment, to receive either aspirin 300 mg once daily or a vitamin K antagonist (phenprocoumon, acenocoumarol, or warfarin; target international normalised ratio [INR] 2·0-3·0) for 90 days. Randomisation was computer-generated using an interactive web response system, with stratification according to participating site. Independent imaging core laboratory adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, but investigators, patients, and clinical event adjudicators were aware of treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was a composite of clinical outcomes (stroke, major haemorrhage, or death) and MRI outcomes (new ischaemic or haemorrhagic brain lesions) in the per-protocol population, assessed at 14 days (clinical and MRI outcomes) and 90 days (clinical outcomes only) after commencing treatment. Non-inferiority of aspirin would be shown if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the absolute risk difference between groups was less than 12% (non-inferiority margin). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02046460.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 11, 2013, and Dec 21, 2018, we enrolled 194 patients; 100 (52%) were assigned to the aspirin group and 94 (48%) were assigned to the vitamin K antagonist group. The per-protocol population included 173 patients; 91 (53%) in the aspirin group and 82 (47%) in the vitamin K antagonist group. The primary endpoint occurred in 21 (23%) of 91 patients in the aspirin group and in 12 (15%) of 82 patients in the vitamin K antagonist group (absolute difference 8% [95% CI -4 to 21], non-inferiority p=0·55). Thus, non-inferiority of aspirin was not shown. Seven patients (8%) in the aspirin group and none in the vitamin K antagonist group had ischaemic strokes. One patient (1%) in the vitamin K antagonist group and none in the aspirin group had major extracranial haemorrhage. There were no deaths. Subclinical MRI outcomes were recorded in 14 patients (15%) in the aspirin group and in 11 patients (13%) in the vitamin K antagonist group. There were 19 adverse events in the aspirin group, and 26 in the vitamin K antagonist group.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings did not show that aspirin was non-inferior to vitamin K antagonists in the treatment of cervical artery dissection.

FUNDING

Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Stroke Funds Basel, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Academic Society Basel.

摘要

背景

颈内动脉夹层是年轻人(<50 岁)中风的主要原因。历史上,临床医生更倾向于使用维生素 K 拮抗剂的口服抗凝剂治疗颈内动脉夹层患者,尽管一些基于现有观察性研究证据的现行指南建议使用阿司匹林。如果证明阿司匹林不比维生素 K 拮抗剂差,由于其使用方便和成本较低,阿司匹林可能更可取。我们旨在测试阿司匹林在颈内动脉夹层患者中的非劣效性。

方法

我们在瑞士、德国和丹麦的 10 个卒中中心进行了一项多中心、随机、开放标签、非劣效性试验。我们将在入组前 2 周内有症状、MRI 证实的颈内动脉夹层的年龄大于 18 岁的患者随机分配(1:1)接受每日一次 300mg 阿司匹林或维生素 K 拮抗剂(苯丙香豆素、醋硝香豆素或华法林;目标国际标准化比值 [INR]2.0-3.0)治疗 90 天。随机分配采用计算机生成的交互式网络响应系统进行,根据参与的地点进行分层。独立的影像学核心实验室裁判对治疗分配不知情,但调查人员、患者和临床事件裁判对治疗分配知情。主要终点是在治疗开始后 14 天(临床和 MRI 结果)和 90 天(仅临床结果)的方案人群中的临床结果(中风、大出血或死亡)和 MRI 结果(新的缺血性或出血性脑病变)的复合结果,在方案人群中评估。如果组间绝对风险差异的双侧 95%CI 的上限小于 12%(非劣效性边界),则表明阿司匹林具有非劣效性。这项试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,NCT02046460。

结果

2013 年 9 月 11 日至 2018 年 12 月 21 日,我们共纳入了 194 名患者;100 名(52%)被分配到阿司匹林组,94 名(48%)被分配到维生素 K 拮抗剂组。方案人群包括 173 名患者;阿司匹林组 91 名(53%),维生素 K 拮抗剂组 82 名(47%)。阿司匹林组有 21 名(23%)患者发生主要终点,维生素 K 拮抗剂组有 12 名(15%)患者发生主要终点(绝对差异 8%[95%CI-4 至 21],非劣效性 p=0.55)。因此,阿司匹林的非劣效性未得到证实。阿司匹林组有 7 名(8%)患者发生缺血性中风,维生素 K 拮抗剂组无患者发生。维生素 K 拮抗剂组有 1 名(1%)患者发生重大颅外出血,阿司匹林组无患者发生。没有死亡。阿司匹林组有 14 名(15%)患者和维生素 K 拮抗剂组有 11 名(13%)患者出现亚临床 MRI 结果。阿司匹林组有 19 例不良事件,维生素 K 拮抗剂组有 26 例不良事件。

解释

我们的研究结果表明,阿司匹林在治疗颈内动脉夹层方面并不优于维生素 K 拮抗剂。

资金

瑞士国家科学基金会、瑞士心脏基金会、巴塞尔卒中基金、巴塞尔大学医院、巴塞尔大学、巴塞尔学术协会。

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