This site is not optimized for Internet Explorer 8 (or older).

Please upgrade to a newer version of Internet Explorer or use an alternate browser such as Chrome or Firefox.

Dual Antiplatelets superior for strokes and TIAs - A meta-analysis

Thursday, October 31, 2013

Submitted by


Source Name: Circulation


Ka Sing Lawrence Wong, FRCP; Yilong Wang, MD; Xinyi Leng, PhD; Chen Mao, PhD; Jinling Tang, FFPH; Philip M.W. Bath, FRCP; Hugh S. Markus, FRCP; Philip B. Gorelick, FACP; Liping Liu, MD; Wenhua Lin, PhD; Yongjun Wang, MD

Emerging studies suggest that early administration of dual antiplatelet therapy may be better than monotherapy for prevention of early recurrent stroke and cardiovascular outcomes in acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA). The authors performed a meta–analysis of randomized, controlled trials evaluating dual versus mono antiplatelet therapy for acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA. For patients with acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA, dual therapy was more effective than monotherapy in reducing risks of early recurrent stroke. The results of the CHANCE study are consistent with previous studies done in other parts of the world. Methods The authors assessed randomized, controlled trials investigating dual versus mono antiplatelet therapy published up to November 2012 and the CHANCE trial (Clopidogrel in High–risk patients with Acute Non–disabling Cerebrovascular Events), for efficacy and safety outcomes in adult patients with acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or TIA with treatment initiated within 3 days of ictus. In total, 14 studies of 9012 patients were included in the systematic review and meta–analysis. Results Dual antiplatelet therapy significantly reduced risk of stroke recurrence (risk ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.80; P<0.001) and the composite outcome of stroke, TIA, acute coronary syndrome, and all death (risk ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.63–0.81; P<0.001) when compared with monotherapy, and nonsignificantly increased risk of major bleeding (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–2.59, P=0.37). Analyses restricted to the CHANCE Trial or the 7 double–blind randomized, controlled trials showed similar results.

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments