Key result
More intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy in JR-NET2 compared to JR-NET1 was associated with decreased ischemic complications (2.1% vs 4.2%) but increased hemorrhagic (5.3% vs 2.1%) and total perioperative complications (10.3% vs 8.3%).
Why the study?
Does intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy affect the rate of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing neuroendovascular therapy?
Population
23,757 patients undergoing neuroendovascular therapy in Japan between 2005-2009.
Comparison
Intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy… vs Less intensive perioperative antithrombotic…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
30 days
Authors
Loading...
Should not yet change practice with intensified antithrombotic regimens; leaves open optimal balance of ischemic versus hemorrhagic risks.
Observational (n=23,757)
Yes
Does intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy affect the rate of ischemic and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing neuroendovascular therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 10.3% vs 8.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
More intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy in neuroendovascular procedures reduces ischemic events but significantly increases hemorrhagic complications, particularly with triple antiplatelet therapy.
Enomoto et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Neuroendovascular therapy (n=23,757). More intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy (JR-NET2 period) vs. Less intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy (JR-NET1 period) was evaluated on Total perioperative complications (p=<0.001). More intensive perioperative antithrombotic therapy in JR-NET2 compared to JR-NET1 was associated with decreased ischemic complications (2.1% vs 4.2%) but increased hemorrhagic (5.3% vs 2.1%) and total perioperative complications (10.3% vs 8.3%).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: