Cilostazol plus Aspirin vs. Clopidogrel plus Aspirin in Acute Minor Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-14 DOI:10.5551/jat.64502
Hsin-Yi Huang, Jia-Hung Chen, Nai-Fang Chi, You-Chia Chen
{"title":"Cilostazol plus Aspirin vs. Clopidogrel plus Aspirin in Acute Minor Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.","authors":"Hsin-Yi Huang, Jia-Hung Chen, Nai-Fang Chi, You-Chia Chen","doi":"10.5551/jat.64502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and mortality risks between cilostazol plus aspirin and clopidogrel plus aspirin treatment for patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective cohort study employed a new-user design and utilized data from the nationwide Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan. Patients were included if they were discharged with newly initiated cilostazol plus aspirin or clopidogrel plus aspirin after primary acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA hospitalization between 2009 and 2018. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance covariats between study groups. Effectiveness outcomes were the risks of acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), TIA, and composite cardiovascular events; Safety outcomes were the risks of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding, and composite bleeding events; Mortality outcomes were the risks of fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 3,403 patients were included, of which 578 were treated with cilostazol plus aspirin and 2,825 were treated with clopidogrel plus aspirin. Cilostazol plus aspirin was associated with a higher risk of ICH (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.16-2.84) compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin. No significant differences in the risks of effectiveness or mortality outcomes between the two groups were found.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The effectiveness and mortality of the two groups were similar for patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA. However, cilostazol plus aspirin was associated with a higher risk of ICH compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin. Patients treated with cilostazol plus aspirin among this population should be monitored carefully to ensure their safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":15128,"journal":{"name":"Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis","volume":" ","pages":"904-916"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11150718/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5551/jat.64502","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This study compared the effectiveness, safety, and mortality risks between cilostazol plus aspirin and clopidogrel plus aspirin treatment for patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Methods: This retrospective cohort study employed a new-user design and utilized data from the nationwide Health and Welfare Database in Taiwan. Patients were included if they were discharged with newly initiated cilostazol plus aspirin or clopidogrel plus aspirin after primary acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA hospitalization between 2009 and 2018. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was applied to balance covariats between study groups. Effectiveness outcomes were the risks of acute ischemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), TIA, and composite cardiovascular events; Safety outcomes were the risks of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding, and composite bleeding events; Mortality outcomes were the risks of fatal stroke, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality.

Results: A total of 3,403 patients were included, of which 578 were treated with cilostazol plus aspirin and 2,825 were treated with clopidogrel plus aspirin. Cilostazol plus aspirin was associated with a higher risk of ICH (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.16-2.84) compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin. No significant differences in the risks of effectiveness or mortality outcomes between the two groups were found.

Conclusions: The effectiveness and mortality of the two groups were similar for patients with acute minor ischemic stroke or TIA. However, cilostazol plus aspirin was associated with a higher risk of ICH compared to clopidogrel plus aspirin. Patients treated with cilostazol plus aspirin among this population should be monitored carefully to ensure their safety.

西洛他唑加阿司匹林与氯吡格雷加阿司匹林治疗急性轻微中风或短暂性脑缺血发作。
目的:本研究比较了西洛他唑加阿司匹林和氯吡格雷加阿司匹林治疗急性轻微缺血性中风或短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)患者的有效性、安全性和死亡率风险:这项回顾性队列研究采用了新用户设计,并利用了台湾全国卫生福利数据库的数据。2009年至2018年期间,如果患者在初次急性轻微缺血性卒中或TIA住院后出院时使用了新启动的西洛他唑加阿司匹林或氯吡格雷加阿司匹林,则纳入研究对象。为平衡研究组之间的协变量,采用了治疗的逆概率加权法。有效性结果为急性缺血性卒中、急性心肌梗死(AMI)、TIA和复合心血管事件的风险;安全性结果为颅内出血(ICH)、消化道出血和复合出血事件的风险;死亡率结果为致命性卒中、心血管死亡和全因死亡的风险:共纳入了3403名患者,其中578人接受了西洛他唑联合阿司匹林治疗,2825人接受了氯吡格雷联合阿司匹林治疗。与氯吡格雷加阿司匹林相比,西洛他唑加阿司匹林的ICH风险更高(HR:1.82;95% CI:1.16-2.84)。两组患者的有效性和死亡率风险无明显差异:结论:对于急性轻微缺血性卒中或 TIA 患者,两组的有效性和死亡率相似。然而,与氯吡格雷加阿司匹林相比,西洛他唑加阿司匹林与较高的 ICH 风险相关。对这类人群中接受西洛他唑加阿司匹林治疗的患者应进行仔细监测,以确保其安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
15.90%
发文量
271
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: JAT publishes articles focused on all aspects of research on atherosclerosis, vascular biology, thrombosis, lipid and metabolism.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信