-
Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2019Though combination of clopidogrel added to aspirin has been compared to aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, limited data exists on the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Though combination of clopidogrel added to aspirin has been compared to aspirin alone in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack, limited data exists on the relative efficacy and safety between clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy in patients with a recent ischemic stroke. We aimed to compare clopidogrel versus aspirin monotherapy in this population.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception to May 2018 to identify clinical trials and observational studies comparing clopidogrel versus aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with recent ischemic stroke within 12 months. Pooled effect estimates were calculated using a random effects model and were reported as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Five studies meeting eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. A total of 29,357 adult patients who had recent ischemic stroke received either clopidogrel ( = 14, 293) or aspirin ( = 15, 064) for secondary prevention. Pairwise meta-analysis showed a statistically significant risk reduction in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (risk ratio 0.72 [95% CI, 0.53-0.97]), any ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke (0.76 [0.58, 0.99), and recurrent ischemic stroke (0.72 [0.55, 0.94]) in patients who received clopidogrel versus aspirin. The risk of bleeding was also lower for clopidogrel versus aspirin (0.57 [0.45, 0.74]). There was no difference in the rate of all-cause mortality between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS
The analysis showed lower risks of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events, recurrent stroke, and bleeding events for clopidogrel monotherapy compared to aspirin. These findings support clinical benefit for single antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel over aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with recent ischemic stroke.
Topics: Aspirin; Brain Ischemia; Clopidogrel; Hemorrhage; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Recurrence; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Secondary Prevention; Stroke; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31867054
DOI: 10.1155/2019/1607181 -
Journal of Vascular Surgery. Venous and... Jan 2021The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The...
The American Venous Forum (AVF) and the Society for Vascular Surgery set forth these guidelines for the management of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT). The guidelines serve to compile the body of literature on EHIT and to put forth evidence-based recommendations. The guidelines are divided into the following categories: classification of EHIT, risk factors and prevention, and treatment of EHIT. One major feature is to standardize the reporting under one classification system. The Kabnick and Lawrence classification systems are now combined into the AVF EHIT classification system. The novel classification system affords standardization in reporting but also allows continued combined evaluation with the current body of literature. Recommendations codify the use of duplex ultrasound for the diagnosis of EHIT. Risk factor assessments and methods of prevention including mechanical prophylaxis, chemical prophylaxis, and ablation distance are discussed. Treatment guidelines are tailored to the AVF EHIT class (ie, I, II, III, IV). Reference is made to the use of surveillance, antiplatelet therapy, and anticoagulants as deemed indicated, and the recommendations incorporate the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants. Last, EHIT management as it relates to the great and small saphenous veins is discussed.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Anticoagulants; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Laser Therapy; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Radiofrequency Ablation; Treatment Outcome; Venous Insufficiency; Venous Thrombosis
PubMed: 33012690
DOI: 10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.06.008 -
Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery Dec 2023The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy (APT) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the associations of APT use after aSAH with outcomes.
METHODS
We searched published medical literature to identify cohort studies involving adults with aSAH. The exposure was APT use after aSAH. Outcome measures were good functional outcome (modified Rankin Score 0-2 or Glasgow Outcome Scale 4-5), delayed cerebral ischemia (infarcts on neuroimaging), and intracranial hemorrhage. After assessing study heterogeneity and publication bias, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects models to assess the strength of association between APT and SAH outcomes.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies with 4228 aSAH patients were included. APT after aSAH was associated with good functional outcome (pooled relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 1.02-1.15; I = 45%, p for heterogeneity = 0.04), but there was no relationship with delayed cerebral ischemia (pooled relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 0.63-1.02; I = 61%, p for heterogeneity <0.01) or intracranial hemorrhage (pooled relative risk, 1.50; 95% confidence interval, [CI], 0.98-2.31; I = 0, p for heterogeneity =0.71). In additional analyses, APT resulted in good functional outcomes in endovascularly-treated patients. When stratified by type of medication, aspirin, clopidogrel, and ticlopidine were associated with good functional outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
APT after aSAH was associated with a modest improvement in functional outcome, but there was no relationship with delayed cerebral ischemia or intracranial hemorrhage.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Subarachnoid Hemorrhage; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome; Cohort Studies; Brain Ischemia; Cerebral Infarction; Vasospasm, Intracranial
PubMed: 37925994
DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2023.108025 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Carotid Stenosis; Metoprolol; Atorvastatin; Chlorthalidone; Fluvastatin; Pravastatin; Probucol; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Stroke; Hemorrhage; Aspirin; Ischemic Stroke; Atherosclerosis
PubMed: 37565307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013573.pub2 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jun 2023Through a process termed , platelets cause thrombi to shrink and become more stable. After platelets are activated via inside-out signaling, glycoprotein αIIbβIII...
Through a process termed , platelets cause thrombi to shrink and become more stable. After platelets are activated via inside-out signaling, glycoprotein αIIbβIII binds to fibrinogen and initiates a cascade of intracellular signaling that ends in actin remodeling, which causes the platelet to change its shape. Clot retraction is also important for wound healing. Although the detailed molecular biology of clot retraction is only partially understood, various substances and physiological conditions modulate clot retraction. In this review, we describe some of the current literature pertaining to clot retraction modulators. In addition, we discuss compounds from , , and that diminish clot retraction and have numerous other health benefits. Caffeic acid and diindolylmethane, both common in plants and vegetables, likewise reduce clot retraction, as do all-trans retinoic acid (a vitamin A derivative), two MAP4K inhibitors, and the chemotherapeutic drug Dasatinib. Conversely, the endogenous anticoagulant Protein S (PS) and the matricellular protein secreted modular calcium-binding protein 1 (SMOC1) both enhance clot retraction. Most studies aiming to identify mechanisms of clot retraction modulators have focused on the increased phosphorylation of vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein and inositol 1,4,5-triphosphate receptor I and the decreased phosphorylation of various phospholipases (e.g., phospholipase A2 (PLA) and phosphatidylinositol-specific phospholipase Cγ2 (PLCγ), c-Jun N-terminal kinase, and (PI3Ks). One study focused on the decreased phosphorylation of Sarcoma Family Kinases (SFK), and others have focused on increased cAMP levels and the downregulation of inflammatory markers such as thromboxanes, including thromboxane A2 (TXA) and thromboxane B2 (TXB); prostaglandin A2 (PGE2); reactive oxygen species (ROS); and cyclooxygenase (COX) enzyme activity. Additionally, pregnancy, fibrinolysis, and the autoimmune condition systemic lupus erythematosus all seem to affect, or at least have some relation with, clot retraction. All the clot retraction modulators need in-depth study to explain these effects.
Topics: Blood Platelets; Clot Retraction; Phosphorylation; Platelet Aggregation; Signal Transduction
PubMed: 37445780
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241310602 -
Clinical Pharmacokinetics May 2023Antiplatelet agents are among the most frequently used medications in cardiovascular medicine. Although in patients with atherosclerotic disease manifestations, in... (Review)
Review
Antiplatelet agents are among the most frequently used medications in cardiovascular medicine. Although in patients with atherosclerotic disease manifestations, in particular those treated by percutaneous coronary intervention, antiplatelet agents are beneficial for the prevention of ischemic events, they inevitably increase the risk of bleeding. Furthermore, 5-15% of patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention may need a surgical procedure within 2 years, creating challenges to safe and effective antiplatelet drug management. Importantly, major spontaneous or procedural-related bleedings are associated with increased hospital admission, length, costs, and poor prognosis. Although the effects of other antithrombotic therapies, such as direct oral anticoagulants, can be reversed by approved specific agents, there are no approved reversal agents for any antiplatelet drugs. The fact that many antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and thienopyridines (i.e., clopidogrel and prasugrel), bind irreversibly to their targets represents a challenge for the development of a drug-specific reversal agent. In contrast, ticagrelor is a non-thienopyridine with a plasma half-life of 7-9 h that reversely binds the P2Y receptor producing potent signaling blockage. In 2015, bentracimab (also known as PB2452 or MEDI2452), a neutralizing monoclonal antibody fragment that binds free plasma ticagrelor and its major active metabolite, was identified. This systematic overview provides a comprehensive summary of the drug development program of bentracimab, focusing on its pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and safety profiles.
Topics: Humans; Acute Coronary Syndrome; Antibodies, Monoclonal; Clopidogrel; Hemorrhage; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists; Ticagrelor
PubMed: 37118383
DOI: 10.1007/s40262-023-01245-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2022Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Antiplatelet agents are widely used to prevent cardiovascular events. The risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents may be different in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) for whom occlusive atherosclerotic events are less prevalent, and bleeding hazards might be increased. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of antiplatelet agents in people with any form of CKD, including those with CKD not receiving renal replacement therapy, patients receiving any form of dialysis, and kidney transplant recipients.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 July 2021 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials of any antiplatelet agents versus placebo or no treatment, or direct head-to-head antiplatelet agent studies in people with CKD. Studies were included if they enrolled participants with CKD, or included people in broader at-risk populations in which data for subgroups with CKD could be disaggregated.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Four authors independently extracted data from primary study reports and any available supplementary information for study population, interventions, outcomes, and risks of bias. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from numbers of events and numbers of participants at risk which were extracted from each included study. The reported RRs were extracted where crude event rates were not provided. Data were pooled using the random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 113 studies, enrolling 51,959 participants; 90 studies (40,597 CKD participants) compared an antiplatelet agent with placebo or no treatment, and 29 studies (11,805 CKD participants) directly compared one antiplatelet agent with another. Fifty-six new studies were added to this 2021 update. Seven studies originally excluded from the 2013 review were included, although they had a follow-up lower than two months. Random sequence generation and allocation concealment were at low risk of bias in 16 and 22 studies, respectively. Sixty-four studies reported low-risk methods for blinding of participants and investigators; outcome assessment was blinded in 41 studies. Forty-one studies were at low risk of attrition bias, 50 studies were at low risk of selective reporting bias, and 57 studies were at low risk of other potential sources of bias. Compared to placebo or no treatment, antiplatelet agents probably reduces myocardial infarction (18 studies, 15,289 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.99, I² = 0%; moderate certainty). Antiplatelet agents has uncertain effects on fatal or nonfatal stroke (12 studies, 10.382 participants: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.59, I² = 37%; very low certainty) and may have little or no effect on death from any cause (35 studies, 18,241 participants: RR 0.94, 95 % CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 14%; low certainty). Antiplatelet therapy probably increases major bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with haemodialysis (HD) (29 studies, 16,194 participants: RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.65, I² = 12%; moderate certainty). In addition, antiplatelet therapy may increase minor bleeding in people with CKD and those treated with HD (21 studies, 13,218 participants: RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.90, I² = 58%; low certainty). Antiplatelet treatment may reduce early dialysis vascular access thrombosis (8 studies, 1525 participants) RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.70; low certainty). Antiplatelet agents may reduce doubling of serum creatinine in CKD (3 studies, 217 participants: RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.86, I² = 8%; low certainty). The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents on stroke, cardiovascular death, kidney failure, kidney transplant graft loss, transplant rejection, creatinine clearance, proteinuria, dialysis access failure, loss of primary unassisted patency, failure to attain suitability for dialysis, need of intervention and cardiovascular hospitalisation were uncertain. Limited data were available for direct head-to-head comparisons of antiplatelet drugs, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, different doses of clopidogrel, abciximab, defibrotide, sarpogrelate and beraprost.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Antiplatelet agents probably reduced myocardial infarction and increased major bleeding, but do not appear to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular death among people with CKD and those treated with dialysis. The treatment effects of antiplatelet agents compared with each other are uncertain.
Topics: Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Proteinuria; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 35224730
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008834.pub4 -
Brain and Behavior Oct 2022We aimed to investigate the prescription of antithrombotic drugs (including anticoagulants and antiplatelets) and medication adherence after stroke. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to investigate the prescription of antithrombotic drugs (including anticoagulants and antiplatelets) and medication adherence after stroke.
METHODS
We performed a systematic literature search across MEDLINE and Embase, from January 1, 2015, to February 17, 2022, to identify studies reporting antithrombotic medications (anticoagulants and antiplatelets) post stroke. Two people independently identified reports to include, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.
RESULTS
We included 453,625 stroke patients from 46 studies. The pooled proportion of prescribed antiplatelets and anticoagulants among patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) was 62% (95% CI: 57%-68%), and 68% (95% CI: 58%-79%), respectively. The pooled proportion of patients who were treated according to the recommendation of guidelines of antithrombotic medications from four studies was 67% (95% CI: 41%-93%). It was reported that 11% (95% CI: 2%-19%) of patients did not receive antithrombotic medications. Good adherence to antiplatelet, anticoagulant, and antithrombotic medications was 78% (95% CI: 67%-89%), 71% (95% CI: 57%-84%), and 73% (95% CI: 59%-86%), respectively.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we found that less than 70% of patients were prescribed and treated according to the recommended guidelines of antithrombotic medications, and good adherence to antithrombotic medications is only 73%. Prescription rate and good adherence to antithrombotic medications still need to be improved among stroke survivors.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Fibrinolytic Agents; Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Prescriptions; Stroke; Survivors
PubMed: 36067030
DOI: 10.1002/brb3.2752 -
Neurological Sciences : Official... Dec 2022Antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage has a high mortality rate, and many factors can cause antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage. Until... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage has a high mortality rate, and many factors can cause antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage. Until now, systematic reviews and assessments of the certainty of the evidence have not been published.
AIM
We conducted a systematic review to identify risk factors of antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage.
METHOD
The protocol for this systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311647). All studies written in English that met the inclusion criteria published before January 2022 were obtained from PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently screened articles, extracted data, and evaluated the quality and evidence of the included studies. Risk factors for antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage were used as the outcome index of this review. Random or fixed-effect models were used in statistical methods. I statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Of 2844 citations, we included 6 studies in our analysis. For intracranial hemorrhage, moderate-certainty evidence showed a probable association with race, low BMI, GCS, severe bleeding, headache or vomiting, cerebrovascular disease, lacunar small vessel disease, cardiovascular disease, blood sugar, blood pressure, CT-defined white matter hypodensity, antihypertensive drugs, and antiplatelet therapy. In addition, we found low-certainty evidence that there may be little to no association between risk of intracranial hemorrhage and age, sex, and dual antithrombotic treatment or anticoagulant. CT-defined white matter hypodensity is not included in most intracranial hemorrhage risk assessment models.
CONCLUSION
This study summarizes risk factors for antiplatelet drug-associated intracranial hemorrhage, which is significant in preventing intracranial hemorrhage.
Topics: Humans; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Intracranial Hemorrhages; Anticoagulants; Hemorrhage; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35982361
DOI: 10.1007/s10072-022-06326-y -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2022The main complications of elevated systemic blood pressure (BP), coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, are related to thrombosis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The main complications of elevated systemic blood pressure (BP), coronary heart disease, ischaemic stroke, and peripheral vascular disease, are related to thrombosis rather than haemorrhage. Therefore, it is important to investigate if antithrombotic therapy may be useful in preventing thrombosis-related complications in patients with elevated BP.
OBJECTIVES
To conduct a systematic review of the role of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation in patients with elevated BP, including elevations in systolic or diastolic BP alone or together. To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents on total deaths or major thrombotic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment. To assess the effects of oral anticoagulants on total deaths or major thromboembolic events or both in these patients versus placebo or other active treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to January 2021: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 12), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), and Ovid Embase (from 1974). The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) were searched for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs in patients with elevated BP were included if they were ≥ 3 months in duration and compared antithrombotic therapy with control or other active treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data for inclusion criteria, our prespecified outcomes, and sources of bias. They assessed the risks and benefits of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants by calculating odds ratios (OR), accompanied by the 95% confidence intervals (CI). They assessed risks of bias and applied GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials (61,015 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four trials were primary prevention (41,695 patients; HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT), and two secondary prevention (19,320 patients, CAPRIE and Huynh). Four trials (HOT, JPAD, JPPP, and TPT) were placebo-controlled and two studies (CAPRIE and Huynh) included active comparators. Four studies compared acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus placebo and found no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.08; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference for cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA reduced the risk of all non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.87; 1 study (missing data in 3 studies), 2540 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.96; 3 studies, 35,794 participants; low-certainty evidence). ASA increased the risk of major bleeding events (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.34 to 2.32; 2 studies, 21,330 participants; high-certainty evidence). One study (CAPRIE; ASA versus clopidogrel) included patients diagnosed with hypertension (mean age 62.5 years, 72% males, 95% Caucasians, mean follow-up: 1.91 years). It showed no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and for cardiovascular mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). ASA probably reduced the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.22; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) and the risk of all cardiovascular events (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.17; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence) when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increased the risk of major bleeding events when compared to ASA (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; 1 study, 19,143 participants; high-certainty evidence). In one study (Huynh; ASA verus warfarin) patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were included (mean age 68 years, 79.8% males, mean follow-up: 1.1 year). There was no evidence of a difference for all-cause mortality (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.12; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal cardiovascular events, and all cardiovascular events were not available. There was no evidence of a difference for major bleeding events (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.60; 1 study, 91 participants; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that antiplatelet therapy modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for primary prevention. ASA reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and increased the risk of major bleeding events. Antiplatelet therapy with ASA probably reduces the risk of non-fatal and all cardiovascular events when compared to clopidogrel. Clopidogrel increases the risk of major bleeding events compared to ASA in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention. There is no evidence that warfarin modifies mortality in patients with elevated BP for secondary prevention. The benefits and harms of the newer drugs glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for patients with high BP have not been studied in clinical trials. Further RCTs of antithrombotic therapy including newer agents and complete documentation of all benefits and harms are required in patients with elevated BP.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Middle Aged; Anticoagulants; Aspirin; Clopidogrel; Fibrinolytic Agents; Hemorrhage; Hypertension; Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors; Thromboembolism; Thrombosis; Warfarin
PubMed: 35900898
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003186.pub4