Anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

Kent, David M; Dahabreh, Issa J; Ruthazer, Robin; Furlan, Anthony J; Weimar, Christian; Serena, Joaquín; Meier, Bernhard; Mattle, Heinrich P; Di Angelantonio, Emanuele; Paciaroni, Maurizio; Schuchlenz, Herwig; Homma, Shunichi; Lutz, Jennifer S; Thaler, David E (2015). Anticoagulant vs. antiplatelet therapy in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an individual participant data meta-analysis. European Heart Journal, 36(35), pp. 2381-2389. Oxford University Press 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv252

Preview

Text 2381.full.pdf - Published Version Available under License Publisher holds Copyright. Download (434kB) | Preview

AIMS

The preferred antithrombotic strategy for secondary prevention in patients with cryptogenic stroke (CS) and patent foramen ovale (PFO) is unknown. We pooled multiple observational studies and used propensity score-based methods to estimate the comparative effectiveness of oral anticoagulation (OAC) compared with antiplatelet therapy (APT).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Individual participant data from 12 databases of medically treated patients with CS and PFO were analysed with Cox regression models, to estimate database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) comparing OAC with APT, for both the primary composite outcome [recurrent stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or death] and stroke alone. Propensity scores were applied via inverse probability of treatment weighting to control for confounding. We synthesized database-specific HRs using random-effects meta-analysis models. This analysis included 2385 (OAC = 804 and APT = 1581) patients with 227 composite endpoints (stroke/TIA/death). The difference between OAC and APT was not statistically significant for the primary composite outcome [adjusted HR = 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.12] or for the secondary outcome of stroke alone (adjusted HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.44-1.27). Results were consistent in analyses applying alternative weighting schemes, with the exception that OAC had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the composite outcome in analyses standardized to the patient population who actually received APT (adjusted HR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.42-0.99). Subgroup analyses did not detect statistically significant heterogeneity of treatment effects across clinically important patient groups.

CONCLUSION

We did not find a statistically significant difference comparing OAC with APT; our results justify randomized trials comparing different antithrombotic approaches in these patients.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

131 since deposited on 19 Feb 2016
12 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item