Accident ischémique transitoire, une manifestation rare du syndrome d’Eagle

International audienc

Clopidogrel Plus Aspirin Versus Warfarin in Patients With Stroke and Aortic Arch Plaques.

International audienceBACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Severe atherosclerosis in the aortic arch is associated with a high risk of recurrent vascular events, but the optimal antithrombotic strategy is unclear. METHODS: This prospective randomized controlled, open-labeled trial, with blinded end point evaluation (PROBE design) tested superiority of aspirin 75 to 150 mg/d plus clopidogrel 75 mg/d (A+C) over warfarin therapy (international normalized ratio 2-3) in patients with ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or peripheral embolism with plaque in the thoracic aorta >4 mm and no other identified embolic source. The primary end point included cerebral infarction, myocardial infarction, peripheral embolism, vascular death, or intracranial hemorrhage. Follow-up visits occurred at 1 month and then every 4 months post randomization. RESULTS: The trial was stopped after 349 patients were randomized during a period of 8 years and 3 months. After a median follow-up of 3.4 years, the primary end point occurred in 7.6% (13/172) and 11.3% (20/177) of patients on A+C and on warfarin, respectively (log-rank, P=0.2). The adjusted hazard ratio was 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.61; P=0.5). Major hemorrhages including intracranial hemorrhages occurred in 4 and 6 patients in the A+C and warfarin groups, respectively. Vascular deaths occurred in 0 patients in A+C arm compared with 6 (3.4%) patients in the warfarin arm (log-rank, P=0.013). Time in therapeutic range (67% of the time for international normalized ratio 2-3) analysis by tertiles showed no significant differences across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Because of lack of power, this trial was inconclusive and results should be taken as hypothesis generating. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00235248

Terutroban versus aspirin in patients with cerebral ischaemic events (PERFORM): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial

Background: Patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) are at high risk of recurrent stroke or other cardiovascular events. We compared the selective thromboxane-prostaglandin receptor antagonist terutroban with aspirin in the prevention of cerebral and cardiovascular ischaemic events in patients with a recent non-cardioembolic cerebral ischaemic event. <p/>Methods: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial was undertaken in 802 centres in 46 countries. Patients who had an ischaemic stroke in the previous 3 months or a TIA in the previous 8 days were randomly allocated with a central interactive response system to 30 mg per day terutroban or 100 mg per day aspirin. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of fatal or non-fatal ischaemic stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, or other vascular death (excluding haemorrhagic death). We planned a sequential statistical analysis of non-inferiority (margin 1·05) followed by analysis of superiority. Analysis was by intention to treat. The study was stopped prematurely for futility on the basis of the recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee. This study is registered, number ISRCTN66157730. <p/>Findings: 9562 patients were assigned to terutroban (9556 analysed) and 9558 to aspirin (9544 analysed); mean follow-up was 28·3 months (SD 7·7). The primary endpoint occurred in 1091 (11%) patients receiving terutroban and 1062 (11%) receiving aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·94–1·12). There was no evidence of a difference between terutroban and aspirin for the secondary or tertiary endpoints. We recorded some increase in minor bleedings with terutroban compared with aspirin (1147 [12%] vs 1045 [11%]; HR 1·11, 95% CI 1·02–1·21), but no significant differences in other safety endpoints. <p/>Interpretation: The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for non-inferiority, but showed similar rates of the primary endpoint with terutroban and aspirin, without safety advantages for terutroban. In a worldwide perspective, aspirin remains the gold standard antiplatelet drug for secondary stroke prevention in view of its efficacy, tolerance, and cost

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of terutroban 30 mg/day versus aspirin 100 mg/day in stroke patients: the prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events of ischemic origin with terutroban in patients with a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (PERFORM) study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of mortality worldwide and a major contributor to neurological disability and dementia. Terutroban is a specific TP receptor antagonist with antithrombotic, antivasoconstrictive, and antiatherosclerotic properties, which may be of interest for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. This article describes the rationale and design of the Prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular Events of ischemic origin with teRutroban in patients with a history oF ischemic strOke or tRansient ischeMic Attack (PERFORM) Study, which aims to demonstrate the superiority of the efficacy of terutroban versus aspirin in secondary prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PERFORM Study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study being carried out in 802 centers in 46 countries. The study population includes patients aged > or =55 years, having suffered an ischemic stroke (< or =3 months) or a transient ischemic attack (< or =8 days). Participants are randomly allocated to terutroban (30 mg/day) or aspirin (100 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of ischemic stroke (fatal or nonfatal), myocardial infarction (fatal or nonfatal), or other vascular death (excluding hemorrhagic death of any origin). Safety is being evaluated by assessing hemorrhagic events. Follow-up is expected to last for 2-4 years. Assuming a relative risk reduction of 13%, the expected number of primary events is 2,340. To obtain statistical power of 90%, this requires inclusion of at least 18,000 patients in this event-driven trial. The first patient was randomized in February 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The PERFORM Study will explore the benefits and safety of terutroban in secondary cardiovascular prevention after a cerebral ischemic event.Journal ArticleMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Rivaroxaban or aspirin for patent foramen ovale and embolic stroke of undetermined source: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the NAVIGATE ESUS trial

Background: Patent foramen ovale (PFO) is a contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). Subgroup analyses from previous studies suggest that anticoagulation could reduce recurrent stroke compared with antiplatelet therapy. We hypothesised that anticoagulant treatment with rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, would reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke compared with aspirin among patients with PFO enrolled in the NAVIGATE ESUS trial. Methods: NAVIGATE ESUS was a double-blinded, randomised, phase 3 trial done at 459 centres in 31 countries that assessed the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban versus aspirin for secondary stroke prevention in patients with ESUS. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, cohorts with and without PFO were defined on the basis of transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) and transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE). The primary efficacy outcome was time to recurrent ischaemic stroke between treatment groups. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding, according to the criteria of the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. The primary analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. Additionally, we did a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of studies in which patients with cryptogenic stroke and PFO were randomly assigned to receive anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. Findings: Between Dec 23, 2014, and Sept 20, 2017, 7213 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive rivaroxaban (n=3609) or aspirin (n=3604). Patients were followed up for a mean of 11 months because of early trial termination. PFO was reported as present in 534 (7·4%) patients on the basis of either TTE or TOE. Patients with PFO assigned to receive aspirin had a recurrent ischaemic stroke rate of 4·8 events per 100 person-years compared with 2·6 events per 100 person-years in those treated with rivaroxaban. Among patients with known PFO, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference in risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke between rivaroxaban and aspirin (hazard ratio [HR] 0·54; 95% CI 0·22–1·36), and the risk was similar for those without known PFO (1·06; 0·84–1·33; pinteraction=0·18). The risks of major bleeding with rivaroxaban versus aspirin were similar in patients with PFO detected (HR 2·05; 95% CI 0·51–8·18) and in those without PFO detected (HR 2·82; 95% CI 1·69–4·70; pinteraction=0·68). The random-effects meta-analysis combined data from NAVIGATE ESUS with data from two previous trials (PICSS and CLOSE) and yielded a summary odds ratio of 0·48 (95% CI 0·24–0·96; p=0·04) for ischaemic stroke in favour of anticoagulation, without evidence of heterogeneity. Interpretation: Among patients with ESUS who have PFO, anticoagulation might reduce the risk of recurrent stroke by about half, although substantial imprecision remains. Dedicated trials of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy or PFO closure, or both, are warranted. Funding: Bayer and Janssen

Rationale and design of a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of terutroban 30 mg/day versus aspirin 100 mg/day in stroke patients: the prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events of ischemic origin with terutroban in patients with a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (PERFORM) study.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic stroke is the leading cause of mortality worldwide and a major contributor to neurological disability and dementia. Terutroban is a specific TP receptor antagonist with antithrombotic, antivasoconstrictive, and antiatherosclerotic properties, which may be of interest for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. This article describes the rationale and design of the Prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular Events of ischemic origin with teRutroban in patients with a history oF ischemic strOke or tRansient ischeMic Attack (PERFORM) Study, which aims to demonstrate the superiority of the efficacy of terutroban versus aspirin in secondary prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PERFORM Study is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study being carried out in 802 centers in 46 countries. The study population includes patients aged > or =55 years, having suffered an ischemic stroke (< or =3 months) or a transient ischemic attack (< or =8 days). Participants are randomly allocated to terutroban (30 mg/day) or aspirin (100 mg/day). The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of ischemic stroke (fatal or nonfatal), myocardial infarction (fatal or nonfatal), or other vascular death (excluding hemorrhagic death of any origin). Safety is being evaluated by assessing hemorrhagic events. Follow-up is expected to last for 2-4 years. Assuming a relative risk reduction of 13%, the expected number of primary events is 2,340. To obtain statistical power of 90%, this requires inclusion of at least 18,000 patients in this event-driven trial. The first patient was randomized in February 2006. CONCLUSIONS: The PERFORM Study will explore the benefits and safety of terutroban in secondary cardiovascular prevention after a cerebral ischemic event

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p&lt;0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons