Why the study?
Does dual antiplatelet loading improve behavioral outcomes and platelet inhibition in a rabbit model of acute ischemic stroke?
Does dual antiplatelet loading improve behavioral outcomes and platelet inhibition in a rabbit model of acute ischemic stroke?
Dual antiplatelet loading with aspirin and clopidogrel improves behavioral outcomes in a rabbit model of acute ischemic stroke compared to aspirin alone.
Supports dual loading in rabbit stroke models; leaves open translation to human practice.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No approved acute therapy exists for thousands of patients with ischemic stroke who present ineligible for thrombolytics. The purpose of this proof-of-concept study was to evaluate the efficacy of acute antiplatelet loading on stroke outcome in the rabbit small clot embolic model. METHODS: Sixty male New Zealand white rabbits were embolized via small clots into the middle cerebral artery. Two hours later, animals were treated with (1) aspirin (5 mg/kg; n=20); (2) usual dual antiplatelet loading (aspirin 10 mg/kg+clopidogrel 10 mg/kg; n=20); or (3) high-dose dual antiplatelet loading (aspirin 10 mg/kg+clopidogrel 30 mg/kg; n=20). The coprimary outcomes were as follows: (1) platelet inhibition and (2) behavioral outcome as measured by the P50 (milligrams of clot that leads to neurological dysfunction in 50% of animals in a group). RESULTS: There was a significant difference in 3-hour arachidonic acid and ADP (P<0.011); 6-hour collagen and ADP (P<0.01, P<0.01); and 24-hour collagen, arachidonic acid, and ADP (P=0.02, P<0.01, P<0.01) platelet inhibition. The behavioral outcome was significantly better in the usual dual antiplatelet loading versus aspirin group (P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that usual dual antiplatelet loading is clinically beneficial in a validated model of acute stroke. Study of usual dual antiplatelet loading in acute stroke is warranted to provide treatment to stroke victims ineligible for current therapies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Meyer et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: