Key result
Aspirin reduced the odds of early recurrent stroke at 2-4 weeks by about 12% (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.97) and the risk of long-term recurrent stroke over 3 years by about 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.96).
Why the study?
Does aspirin reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and death or dependency in patients with acute ischemic stroke or previous TIA?
Does aspirin reduce the risk of recurrent stroke and death or dependency in patients with acute ischemic stroke or previous TIA?
Odds Ratio: 0.88 (95% CI 0.79–0.97)
Aspirin is a modestly effective, affordable thromboprophylactic that significantly reduces the risk of early and long-term recurrent stroke in patients with acute ischemic stroke or TIA.
Supports aspirin's role in secondary prevention; leaves open optimal dosing and combinations in contemporary cohorts.
Aspirin is considered an affordable and widely available, if only modestly effective, thromboprophylactic for secondary stroke prevention. The two large randomised controlled trials of aspirin in acute ischaemic stroke reported that aspirin reduced the odds of early recurrent stroke at 2–4 weeks by about 12% (odds ratio [OR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·79–0·97) and the odds of death or dependency at the end of follow-up by about 5% (OR 0·95, 0·91–0·99).1 The ten trials of aspirin for long-term secondary prevention in patients with previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or ischaemic stroke reported that aspirin reduced the risk of any recurrent stroke over 3 years by about 17% (relative risk [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·72–0·96).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Graeme J. Hankey (2016) conducted a review in Acute ischaemic stroke, previous transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or ischaemic stroke. Aspirin was evaluated on Early recurrent stroke at 2-4 weeks (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97). Aspirin reduced the odds of early recurrent stroke at 2-4 weeks by about 12% (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.79-0.97) and the risk of long-term recurrent stroke over 3 years by about 17% (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.72-0.96).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: