Why the study?
To review major trials evaluating DAPT in ischemic cerebrovascular events and guideline implementations, providing a practical clinical algorithm and highlighting implementation caveats.
Does dual antiplatelet therapy reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic minor ischemic stroke, high-risk TIA, or intracranial stenosis?
Does dual antiplatelet therapy reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic minor ischemic stroke, high-risk TIA, or intracranial stenosis?
Short-term dual antiplatelet therapy is effective for secondary prevention in patients with acute minor non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke, high-risk TIA, or symptomatic intracranial stenosis, though it carries an increased risk of bleeding.
In the last 10 years, the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the neurological ambit has been explored in patients with non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and intracranial atherosclerotic disease. Two clinical trials (CHANCE and POINT) showed that in patients with minor non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduces the risk of stroke recurrence. Another trial (THALES) evaluated the association of ticagrelor and aspirin in mild-to-moderate non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA, showing a reduced risk of subsequent stroke compared to aspirin alone. Finally, the use of DAPT has been assessed in the treatment of stroke associated with atherosclerotic intracranial stenosis in the SAMMPRIS trial, showing a favorable profile compared to percutaneous angioplasty and stenting. The aim of this article is, after a review the major trials evaluating DAPT in patients with ischemic cerebrovascular events and the ways they have been implemented in Italian, European, and USA guidelines, to provide a practical algorithm to help clinicians in their everyday clinical practice and to outline possible caveats in the practical implementation of guidelines. Possible limitations and gaps in knowledge regarding specific conditions (e.g., the use of DAPT after acute phase therapies) are also underlined.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mele et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: