Patel Parth, Tiongson Justin, Chen Austin, Siegal Taylor, Oak Solomon, Golla Akhil, Kamen Scott, Thon Jesse M, Vigilante Nicholas, Rana Ameena, Hester Taryn, Siegler James E
Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Camden, NJ, United States.
Cooper Neurological Institute, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, United States.
Front Neurol. 2022 Dec 15;13:1041806. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2022.1041806. eCollection 2022.
Insufficient data exist regarding the benefit of long-term antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant therapy in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with ischemic stroke and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Therefore, this study aimed to compare longitudinal outcomes associated with antiplatelet vs. anticoagulant use in a cohort of patients with stroke and with an ejection fraction of ≤40%.
We retrospectively analyzed single-center registry data (2015-2021) of patients with ischemic stroke, HFrEF, and sinus rhythm. Time to the primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke, major bleeding, or death was assessed using the adjusted Cox proportional hazards model and was compared between patients treated using anticoagulation (±antiplatelet) vs. antiplatelet therapy alone after propensity score matching using an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, with adjustment for residual measurable confounders. Sensitivity analyses included the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model using ITT and as-treated approaches without propensity score matching.
Of 2,974 screened patients, 217 were included in the secondary analyses, with 130 patients matched according to the propensity score for receiving anticoagulation treatment for the primary analysis, spanning 143 patient-years of follow-up. After propensity score matching, there was no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.56-2.17]. Non-White race (HR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.16-4.41) and the presence of intracranial occlusion (HR 2.86, 95% CI: 1.40-5.83) were independently associated with the primary outcome, while hypertension was inversely associated (HR 0.42, 95% CI: 0.21-0.84). There remained no significant association between anticoagulation and the primary outcome in sensitivity analyses.
In HFrEF patients with an acute stroke, there was no difference in outcomes of antithrombotic strategies. While this study was limited by non-randomized treatment allocation, the results support future trials of stroke patients with HFrEF which may randomize patients to anticoagulation or antiplatelet.
关于长期抗血小板治疗与抗凝治疗对射血分数降低的缺血性中风患者预防复发性缺血性中风的益处,现有数据不足。因此,本研究旨在比较在射血分数≤40%的中风患者队列中,使用抗血小板药物与抗凝药物的纵向结局。
我们回顾性分析了单中心登记数据(2015 - 2021年),这些数据来自患有缺血性中风、射血分数降低的心力衰竭(HFrEF)且为窦性心律的患者。使用调整后的Cox比例风险模型评估复发性缺血性中风、大出血或死亡的主要结局发生时间,并在倾向评分匹配后,采用意向性治疗(ITT)方法,对接受抗凝治疗(±抗血小板治疗)的患者与仅接受抗血小板治疗的患者进行比较,并对残余可测量的混杂因素进行调整。敏感性分析包括使用ITT和未进行倾向评分匹配的实际治疗方法进行多变量Cox比例风险模型分析。
在2974名筛查患者中,217名纳入二次分析,130名患者根据倾向评分匹配用于主要分析的接受抗凝治疗,随访时间跨度为143患者年。倾向评分匹配后,抗凝治疗与主要结局之间无显著关联[风险比(HR)1.10,95%置信区间(CI):0.56 - 2.17]。非白种人(HR 2.26,95% CI:1.16 - 4.41)和颅内闭塞的存在(HR 2.86,95% CI:1.40 - 5.83)与主要结局独立相关,而高血压与之呈负相关(HR 0.42,95% CI:0.21 - 0.84)。敏感性分析中,抗凝治疗与主要结局之间仍无显著关联。
在急性中风的射血分数降低的心力衰竭患者中,抗血栓策略的结局无差异。虽然本研究受非随机治疗分配的限制,但结果支持未来对射血分数降低的心力衰竭中风患者进行试验,可将患者随机分为抗凝或抗血小板治疗组。