Antiplatelet monotherapy after stroke in atrial fibrillation was associated with a higher risk of net clinical outcomes compared to oral anticoagulation alone (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-2.00; P=0.015).
Cohort (n=918)
No
Does antiplatelet therapy alone or in combination with OAC improve net clinical outcomes compared to OAC alone in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute ischemic stroke?
In patients with AF and acute ischemic stroke, antiplatelet therapy alone or combined with OAC provides no additive clinical benefit and increases the risk of adverse events compared to OAC monotherapy.
Hazard Ratio: 1.47 (95% CI 1.08–2)
p-value: p=0.015
AIMS: Data on the optimal use of antithrombotic drugs and associated clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute ischaemic stroke (IS) are limited. We investigated the prescription patterns of antithrombotics in community practice and long-term clinical prognosis according to early post-stroke antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF and acute IS. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with AF who were admitted for acute IS at a single tertiary hospital in 2010-2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical profiles including the aetiology of stroke and prescription patterns of antithrombotics were identified. The net clinical outcome (NCO)-the composite of recurrent stroke, any bleeding, hospitalization or emergency department visits for cardiovascular (CV) events, and death-was compared according to the antithrombotic therapy at the first outpatient clinic visit oral anticoagulation (OAC) alone vs. antiplatelet (APT) alone vs. OAC/APT(s) following discharge. A total of 918 patients with AF and acute IS (mean age, 72.6 years; male, 59.3%; mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score 3.3) were analysed. One-third (33.9%, n = 310) of patients were simultaneously diagnosed with AF and IS. The most common aetiology of IS was cardioembolism (71.2%), followed by undetermined aetiology (19.8%) and large artery atherosclerosis (6.0%). OAC, APT(s), and concomitant OAC and APT(s) were prescribed in 33.4%, 11.1%, and 53.4% of patients during admission that changed to 67.0%, 9.1%, and 21.7% at the first outpatient clinic, and were mostly continued up to one year after IS. Non-prescription of OAC was observed in 11.3% of post-stroke patients with AF. During a median follow-up of 2.1 years, the overall incidence rate of NCO per 100 patient-year (PY) was 20.14. APT(s) monotherapy presented the highest cumulative risk of NCO (adjusted hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.00, P = 0.015; with reference to OAC monotherapy) mainly driven by the highest rates of recurrent stroke and any bleeding. OAC/APT(s) combination therapy was associated with a 1.62-fold significantly higher risk of recurrent stroke (P = 0.040) and marginally higher risk of any bleeding than OAC monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Approximately one-third of acute IS in AF have a distinctive mechanism from cardioembolism. Although APT was frequently prescribed in post-stroke patients with AF, no additive clinical benefit was observed. Adherence to OAC treatment is essential to prevent further CV adverse events in patients with AF and IS.
Ahn et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation and acute ischaemic stroke (n=918). Antiplatelet (APT) monotherapy vs. Oral anticoagulation (OAC) monotherapy was evaluated on Net clinical outcome (composite of recurrent stroke, any bleeding, hospitalization or emergency department visits for cardiovascular events, and death) (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.08-2.00, p=0.015). Antiplatelet monotherapy after stroke in atrial fibrillation was associated with a higher risk of net clinical outcomes compared to oral anticoagulation alone (HR 1.47; 95% CI 1.08-2.00; P=0.015).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: