Hariharan Nikhil Nair, Patel Kashyap, Sikder Omaike, Perera Kanjana S, Diener Hans-Christoph, Hart Robert G, Eikelboom John W
Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
School of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Eur Stroke J. 2022 Jun;7(2):92-98. doi: 10.1177/23969873221076971. Epub 2022 Feb 11.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulation (DOAC) compared with antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in adult patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS).
We searched major databases (Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science) for RCTs published until March 2021. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke, and the main safety outcomes were major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNB). We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We used a random-effects model to determine pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals in the datasets and key subgroups.
Our search identified two RCTs, involving a total of 12,603 patients with ESUS. Anticoagulation with dabigatran or rivaroxaban compared with aspirin did not reduce the risk of recurrent stroke (RR, 0.96 [0.76-1.20]) or increase major bleeding (RR, 1.77 [0.80-3.89]) but significantly increased the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding (RR, 1.57 [1.26-1.97]). Prespecified subgroup analysis demonstrated consistent results according to age and sex. Additional post-hoc subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent results according to prior stroke and presence of a patent foramen ovale but suggested that DOACs reduced recurrent stroke in patients with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <50 and 50-80 ml/min but not in those with eGFR >80 ml/min (interaction = 0.0234).
DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Direct oral anticoagulations are not more effective than aspirin in preventing stroke recurrence in patients with ESUS and increase bleeding.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42019138593.
我们对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估在成年不明来源栓塞性卒中(ESUS)患者中,直接口服抗凝剂(DOAC)与抗血小板治疗相比用于二级预防的疗效和安全性。
我们检索了主要数据库(Embase、MEDLINE、CINAHL、CENTRAL和Web of Science),以查找截至2021年3月发表的RCT。主要结局是复发性卒中,主要安全性结局是大出血和临床相关非大出血(CRNB)。我们使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。我们使用随机效应模型来确定数据集中和关键亚组的合并风险比及95%置信区间。
我们的检索确定了两项RCT,共纳入12,603例ESUS患者。与阿司匹林相比,使用达比加群或利伐沙班进行抗凝治疗并未降低复发性卒中的风险(风险比,0.96 [0.76 - 1.20]),也未增加大出血风险(风险比,1.77 [0.80 - 3.89]),但显著增加了大出血或临床相关非大出血的复合风险(风险比,1.57 [1.26 - 1.97])。根据年龄和性别进行的预设亚组分析显示了一致的结果。额外的事后亚组分析根据既往卒中情况和卵圆孔未闭情况显示了一致的结果,但提示DOACs可降低估计肾小球滤过率(eGFR)<50和50 - 80 ml/min患者的复发性卒中风险,而对于eGFR>80 ml/min的患者则无此作用(交互作用 = 0.0234)。
讨论/结论:在预防ESUS患者的卒中复发方面,直接口服抗凝剂并不比阿司匹林更有效,且会增加出血风险。
PROSPERO标识符:CRD42019138593。