Antiplatelets Versus Anticoagulation in Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2064 Patients.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Drugs in Research & Development Pub Date : 2022-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-03 DOI:10.1007/s40268-022-00398-z
Abdulrahman Ibrahim Hagrass, Bashar Khaled Almaghary, Mohamed Abdelhady Mostafa, Mohamed Elfil, Sarah Makram Elsayed, Amira A Aboali, Aboalmagd Hamdallah, Mohammed Tarek Hasan, Mohammed Al-Kafarna, Khaled Mohamed Ragab, Mohamed Fahmy Doheim
{"title":"Antiplatelets Versus Anticoagulation in Cervical Artery Dissection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 2064 Patients.","authors":"Abdulrahman Ibrahim Hagrass, Bashar Khaled Almaghary, Mohamed Abdelhady Mostafa, Mohamed Elfil, Sarah Makram Elsayed, Amira A Aboali, Aboalmagd Hamdallah, Mohammed Tarek Hasan, Mohammed Al-Kafarna, Khaled Mohamed Ragab, Mohamed Fahmy Doheim","doi":"10.1007/s40268-022-00398-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>In young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1.25-38.83).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.</p>","PeriodicalId":49258,"journal":{"name":"Drugs in Research & Development","volume":"22 3","pages":"187-203"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e3/82/40268_2022_Article_398.PMC9433613.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs in Research & Development","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40268-022-00398-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: In young people aged < 50 years, cervical artery dissection (CeAD) is among the most common causes of stroke. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the safest and most effective antithrombotic treatment for CeAD. We aimed to synthesize concrete evidence from studies that compared the efficacy and safety of antiplatelet (AP) versus anticoagulant (AC) therapies for CeAD.

Methods: We searched major electronic databases/search engines from inception till September 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anticoagulants with antiplatelets for CeAD were included. A meta-analysis was conducted using articles that were obtained and found to be relevant. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used for continuous data and odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI for dichotomous data.

Results: Our analysis included 15 studies involving 2064 patients, 909 (44%) of whom received antiplatelets and 1155 (56%) received anticoagulants. Our analysis showed a non-significant difference in terms of the 3-month mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.03-7.58), > 3-month mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.40-6.56), recurrent stroke (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.46-2.02), recurrent transient ischaemic attack (TIA) (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.44-1.98), symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.12-1.19), and complete recanalization (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46-1.06). Regarding primary ischaemic stroke, the results favoured AC over AP among RCTs (OR 6.97, 95% CI 1.25-38.83).

Conclusion: Our study did not show a considerable difference between the two groups, as all outcomes showed non-significant differences between them, except for primary ischaemic stroke (RCTs) and complete recanalization (observational studies), which showed a significant favour of AC over AP. Even though primary ischaemic stroke is an important outcome, several crucial points that could affect these results should be paid attention to. These include the incomplete adjustment for the confounding effect of AP-AC doses, frequencies, administration compliance, and others. We recommend more well-designed studies to assess if unnecessary anticoagulation can be avoided in CeAD.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

抗血小板与抗凝治疗颈动脉夹层:对 2064 例患者的系统回顾和 Meta 分析。
背景和目标:方法:我们检索了从开始到 2021 年 9 月的主要电子数据库/搜索引擎。包括队列研究和随机对照试验(RCT),这些研究比较了抗凝剂和抗血小板治疗 CeAD 的效果。利用获得的相关文章进行荟萃分析。连续数据采用平均差(MD)和 95% 置信区间(CI),二分数据采用几率比(OR)和 95% 置信区间:我们的分析包括 15 项研究,涉及 2064 名患者,其中 909 人(44%)接受了抗血小板治疗,1155 人(56%)接受了抗凝治疗。02)、复发性短暂性缺血性发作(TIA)(OR 0.93,95% CI 0.44-1.98)、症状性颅内出血(sICH)(OR 0.38,95% CI 0.12-1.19)和完全再通(OR 0.70,95% CI 0.46-1.06)。在原发性缺血性中风方面,RCTs 的结果显示 AC 优于 AP(OR 6.97,95% CI 1.25-38.83):我们的研究并未显示两组间存在显著差异,因为所有结果均显示两组间无显著差异,只有原发性缺血性卒中(研究性试验)和完全再通(观察性研究)显示 AC 明显优于 AP。尽管原发性缺血性中风是一项重要结果,但仍需注意可能影响这些结果的几个关键点。其中包括对 AP-AC 剂量、频率、给药依从性等混杂效应的调整不完全。我们建议开展更多精心设计的研究,以评估在 CeAD 中是否可以避免不必要的抗凝。
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
Drugs in Research & Development
Drugs in Research & Development Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs in R&D is an international, peer reviewed, open access, online only journal, and provides timely information from all phases of drug research and development that will inform clinical practice. Healthcare decision makers are thus provided with knowledge about the developing place of a drug in therapy. The Journal includes: Clinical research on new and established drugs; Preclinical research of direct relevance to clinical drug development; Short communications and case study reports that meet the above criteria will also be considered; Reviews may also be considered.
×
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