Why the study?
Does dabigatran etexilate prevent ischemic events safely in patients requiring secondary stroke prevention?
Does dabigatran etexilate prevent ischemic events safely in patients requiring secondary stroke prevention?
Dabigatran etexilate appears safe and effective for secondary stroke prevention in real-world clinical practice, including in a small subset of patients with prior cerebral hemorrhage.
May support dabigatran in real-world secondary prevention; leaves open randomized confirmation of net benefit.
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to analyze our clinical experience with dabigatran etexilate in secondary stroke prevention. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients starting dabigatran etexilate for secondary stroke prevention from March 2010 to December 2012. Efficacy and safety variables were registered. RESULTS: 106 patients were included, median follow-up of 12 months (range 1-31). Fifty-six females (52.8%), mean age 76.4 (range 50-95, SD 9.8), median CHADS2 4 (range 2-6), CHA2DS2-VASc 5 (range 2-9), and HAS-BLED 2 (range 1-5). Indication for dabigatran etexilate was ischemic stroke in 101 patients and acute cerebral hemorrhage (CH) due to warfarin in 5 (4.7%). Dabigatran etexilate 110 mg bid was prescribed in 71 cases (67%) and 150 mg bid was prescribed in the remaining. Seventeen patients (16%) suffered 20 complications during follow-up. Ischemic complications (10) were 6 transient ischemic attacks (TIA), 3 ischemic strokes, and 1 acute coronary syndrome. Hemorrhagic complications (10) were CH (1), gastrointestinal bleeding (6), mild hematuria (2), and mild metrorrhagia (1), leading to dabigatran etexilate discontinuation in 3 patients. Patients with previous CH remained uneventful. Three patients died (pneumonia, congestive heart failure, and acute cholecystitis) and 9 were lost during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran etexilate was safe and effective in secondary stroke prevention in clinical practice, including a small number of patients with previous history of CH.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DeFelipe-Mimbrera et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: