Key result
Prior antiplatelet use did not change significantly over 7 years, with 54.7% of incident ischaemic stroke patients not receiving any antiplatelet therapy prior to their stroke.
Why the study?
Has the pattern of antiplatelet use prior to incident ischemic stroke changed over a 7-year period, and is it associated with specific stroke subtypes?
Observational (n=4,307)
No
Has the pattern of antiplatelet use prior to incident ischemic stroke changed over a 7-year period, and is it associated with specific stroke subtypes?
Over half of patients presenting with incident ischemic stroke were not on prior antiplatelet therapy, and this proportion remained unchanged over 7 years, highlighting a potential gap in primary prevention.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Persistent pre-stroke antiplatelet gap unchanged over 7 years may reflect primary prevention shortfalls; leaves open targeted uptake strategies in observational data.
BACKGROUND: guidelines have changed in relation to the indication of antiplatelet therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of stroke. Of interest is how the proportion of patients who had or had not taken antiplatelet agents prior to an incident stroke has changed over time, whether the type of antiplatelet agents used has altered and whether prior antiplatelet use is associated with a particular ischaemic stroke subtype. METHODS: a stroke register was retrospectively examined. All ischaemic stroke patients admitted between January 2004 and March 2011 to a single University Hospital with a catchment population of ∼750,000 were included. We excluded those who were on anticoagulants prior to the ischaemic stroke. RESULTS: a total of 4,307 ischaemic stroke patients [male 47.5%, mean age 77.6 (SD 11.7) years] were included. Of them, 54.7% (SD 2.2%) were not on any antiplatelet therapy prior to their incident stroke. The type and pattern of antiplatelet use prior to stroke did not change significantly during the 7-year study period, and there were no statistically significant differences between different ischaemic stroke subtypes with regards to prior antiplatelet use. CONCLUSIONS: our findings highlight the requirement to improve currently available risk prediction scores as well as the potential clinical impact of antiplatelet resistance within the at risk population who are already on antiplatelets. These findings also indicate that targeting of multiple risk factors may be very important in stroke prevention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
White et al. (2013) conducted an observational in Ischaemic stroke (n=4,307). Prior antiplatelet therapy vs. No prior antiplatelet therapy was evaluated on Proportion of patients on antiplatelet therapy prior to incident stroke and association with stroke subtype. Prior antiplatelet use did not change significantly over 7 years, with 54.7% of incident ischaemic stroke patients not receiving any antiplatelet therapy prior to their stroke.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: