Evaluating Acute Ischemic Strokes despite Regular Anticoagulation: A Comparative Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Treatment Outcomes
{"title":"Evaluating Acute Ischemic Strokes despite Regular Anticoagulation: A Comparative Analysis of Direct Oral Anticoagulants and Warfarin in Treatment Outcomes","authors":"Sumeyye Cakmak, Ruken Simsekoglu","doi":"10.1155/2024/7676634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Objective</i>. We aim to compare the outcomes between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients under vitamin K antagonist with those under direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). <i>Methods</i>. This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted for one year in a tertiary hospital operating as a stroke center. A total of 135 patients receiving oral anticoagulants (DOACs: 98 and VKA: 37) with AIS were included in the study. The patients’ vital parameters, examination and laboratory findings, acute stroke severity scores, stroke localizations, and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. <i>Results</i>. Of the 135 patients, 98 (mean age: 76.2, 52 women) were on DOACs while 37 (mean age: 69.7, 26 women) were on VKA. The average age was significantly higher in the group of patients receiving DOACs (<i>p</i> = 0.005). Although the mean age of the patient group using DOACs was higher, they did not score worse than patients using VKAs in terms of stroke severity and 3-month outcomes were equal in both groups. The rates of receiving iv-tPA (8.2% and 2.7%, respectively) and thrombectomy rates (23.5% and 29.7%, respectively) were low in the DOACs and VKA groups. <i>Conclusion</i>. The equality in stroke severity and 3-month outcome scores between the DOACs group, characterized by higher average age, and the VKA group is indicative of the comparable efficacy of DOACs in stroke management.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13782,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","volume":"2024 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/7676634","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/7676634","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective. We aim to compare the outcomes between acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients under vitamin K antagonist with those under direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Methods. This prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted for one year in a tertiary hospital operating as a stroke center. A total of 135 patients receiving oral anticoagulants (DOACs: 98 and VKA: 37) with AIS were included in the study. The patients’ vital parameters, examination and laboratory findings, acute stroke severity scores, stroke localizations, and 3-month clinical outcomes were recorded. Results. Of the 135 patients, 98 (mean age: 76.2, 52 women) were on DOACs while 37 (mean age: 69.7, 26 women) were on VKA. The average age was significantly higher in the group of patients receiving DOACs (p = 0.005). Although the mean age of the patient group using DOACs was higher, they did not score worse than patients using VKAs in terms of stroke severity and 3-month outcomes were equal in both groups. The rates of receiving iv-tPA (8.2% and 2.7%, respectively) and thrombectomy rates (23.5% and 29.7%, respectively) were low in the DOACs and VKA groups. Conclusion. The equality in stroke severity and 3-month outcome scores between the DOACs group, characterized by higher average age, and the VKA group is indicative of the comparable efficacy of DOACs in stroke management.
期刊介绍:
IJCP is a general medical journal. IJCP gives special priority to work that has international appeal.
IJCP publishes:
Editorials. IJCP Editorials are commissioned. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Perspectives. Most IJCP Perspectives are commissioned. Example. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
Study design and interpretation. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Original data from clinical investigations. In particular: Primary research papers from RCTs, observational studies, epidemiological studies; pre-specified sub-analyses; pooled analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Meta-analyses. [Always peer reviewed]
Systematic reviews. From October 2009, special priority will be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
Non-systematic/narrative reviews. From October 2009, reviews that are not systematic will be considered only if they include a discrete Methods section that must explicitly describe the authors'' approach. Special priority will, however, be given to systematic reviews. [Always peer reviewed]
''How to…'' papers. Example. [Always peer reviewed]
Consensus statements. [Always peer reviewed] Short reports. [Always peer reviewed]
Letters. [Peer reviewed at the editor''s discretion]
International scope
IJCP publishes work from investigators globally. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the UK. Around 30% of IJCP articles list an author from the USA or Canada. Around 45% of IJCP articles list an author from a European country that is not the UK. Around 15% of articles published in IJCP list an author from a country in the Asia-Pacific region.