© The European Society of Cardiology 2005. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org
Current status of stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation
Philip M.W. Bath1,2,*,
Lian Zhao1,2 and
Stan Heptinstall2
1Institute of Neuroscience, University of Nottingham, D Floor, South Block, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
2Institute for Clinical Research, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 115 970 9348; fax: +44 115 875 4506. E-mail address: philip.bath{at}nottingham.ac.uk
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common dysrhythmia and increases
the risk of stroke. Data from primary and secondary trials have
shown that anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists such as
warfarin, for example, is the treatment of choice for preventing
stroke and systemic cardioembolism. The recommended international
normalized ratio is 2.0–3.0, which maintains the balance
between risk of ischaemic stroke and bleeding. Anticoagulation
with warfarin is more effective than aspirin monotherapy, but
ongoing studies are assessing the role of dual antiplatelet
therapy (combined aspirin and clopidogrel). Recently, fixed
dose ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor, was shown
to be as effective as warfarin and well-tolerated. Anticoagulation
for patients with acute ischaemic stroke and AF has not resulted
in significant improvements in functional outcome, whilst reductions
in recurrent stroke were counterbalanced by an increase in intracerebral
haemorrhage. Aspirin therefore remains the first line treatment
for these patients. Lowering blood pressure and lipids provide
additional benefits in reducing the rate of stroke in patients
with AF. Other approaches are being assessed, including the
local delivery of nitric oxide, and excision of the left atrial
appendage, the source of most atrial embolic clots.
Key Words: Aspirin • Atrial fibrillation • Blood pressure • Cholesterol • Prevention • Vitamin K antagonists
|
Introduction
|
|---|
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common dysrhythmia becoming more
prevalent with increasing age.
1 As AF leads to the formation
of thrombus in the left atrium, especially its appendage, individuals
with AF have a significant six-fold increase in their risk of
ischaemic stroke and systemic cardioembolism when compared with
those subjects with normal sinus rhythm.
1,2 AF increases the
incidence of stroke independently of other important vascular
risk factors such as hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and diabetes
mellitus. During the last decade, antithrombotic therapy has
been widely advocated in patients with AF in an attempt to reduce
the incidence of cardioembolic events. Many randomized controlled
trials have assessed the effects of anticoagulation, either
compared with a control or other antithrombotic agents. This
review describes current evidence-based approaches for the primary
and secondary prevention of stroke and systemic embolism, and
its acute treatment, in patients with AF.
|
Primary prevention
|
|---|
Five randomized clinical trials (AFASAK-I,
3 BAATAF,
4 CAFA,
5 SPAF-I,
6 and SPINAF
7), involving 3871 subjects, have assessed
the effect of oral anticoagulation [international normalized
ratio (INR), 1.4–4.2] on the risk of first stroke in patients
with AF (
Table 1). Excepting CAFA, each trial demonstrated individually
a significant reduction in the risk of stroke with oral anticoagulant
when compared with control. The CAFA study was stopped early
(having randomized 378 patients) on the basis of the positive
results of AFASAK and SPAF. A pooled analysis of individual
patient data from these five primary prevention trials found
that the annual rate of stroke was 4.3% in the control group
and 1.4% with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, e.g. warfarin), a
relative risk reduction (RRR) of 68% [95% confidence interval
(CI), 50–79].
8 Although these results reflect the overall
balance between efficacy and hazard, it is important to consider
the risk of serious bleeding separately. Symptomatic intracranial
haemorrhage occurred in 0.3–0.5% of patients randomized
to warfarin and 0.0–0.2% in control subjects (
Table 2),
and the risk of intracranial haemorrhage was related to increasing
patient age and blood pressure.
8,9
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 2 Effect of anticoagulation on major bleeding and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (SICH) in patients with AF
|
|
The complexities of administering VKAs (including variable doses,
monitoring of INR, contraindications) and the significant risk
of bleeding, especially in the very elderly, mean that alternative
antithrombotic strategies have been sought, particularly with
antiplatelet agents. Two randomized trials evaluated the use
of aspirin for stroke prevention in patients with AF (
Table 1). There was no significant difference in the annual rate of
stroke with aspirin (75 mg daily, 4.5%) when compared with
control (4.8%) in the AFASAK-I study (RRR, 18%; 95% CI, –58
to 60);
3 in contrast, the SPAF-I study found the annual rate
of stroke was 4.2% with aspirin (325 mg daily) and 7.4%
with control (RRR, 44%; 95% CI, 7–66).
6 When data from
both studies were combined, aspirin reduced stroke by one-third
(RRR, 36%; 95% CI, 4–57).
8
Direct comparisons of warfarin with aspirin (or indobufen, another antiplatelet agent) have been assessed in six large trials (AFASAK-I,3 AFASAK-II,10 PATAF,11 SIFA,12 SPAF-II,13 SPAF-III14), although the results varied considerably. Comparable effects were seen in PATAF, SIFA, and SPAF-II, although warfarin was superior in AFASAK-I (RRR, 48%) and SPAF-III (RRR, 45%), with the converse being found in AFASAK-II (RRR, –23%).10 Meta-analysis of five of these trials (AFASAK-I, AFASAK-II, PATAF, SIFA, SPAF-II) revealed a greater risk reduction in stroke with warfarin than aspirin/indobufen (RRR, 32%; 95% CI, 1.0–54).15 Hence, both direct and indirect comparisons of oral anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy suggest that the former is more effective than the latter.
|
Secondary prevention
|
|---|
Warfarin-based therapy showed a 3.1% annual rate of stroke,
which was less than that found in control subjects (RRR, 66%;
95% CI, 43–80) in the EAFT study (
Table 1),
16 and these
results are comparable with those seen in the five primary prevention
trials described earlier. Not only was warfarin more effective
than aspirin (RRR, 40%; 95% CI, 13–59), but also aspirin
failed to reduce stroke (RRR, 14%; 95% CI, –36 to 15).
Similar results were present when the EAFT data were combined
with those from a subset of the VA-SPINAF trial in a Cochrane
Collaboration meta-analysis (
Table 1).
17,18 Recent antiplatelet
studies have excluded patients with AF following the publication
of EAFT. For example, ESPS-II initially allowed inclusion of
patients with presumed cardioembolic stroke, but subsequently
excluded these once the results of EAFT were known.
19
|
Combining data from primary and secondary prevention trials
|
|---|
When data from primary and secondary prevention trials were
amalgamated in a meta-analysis of six trials (AFASAK-I, SPAF-I,
BAATAF, CAFA, SPINAF, and EAFT;
Table 1), a significant and
clinically important reduction in the rate of stroke was reported
with warfarin (3.7 vs. 9.2%; RRR, 62%; 95% CI, 48–72).
20 Overall, the data from these trials strongly support the use
of anticoagulation therapy in the prevention of primary and
secondary stroke.
The risk reduction with aspirin was lower (9.8 vs. 12%, RRR, 22%; 95% CI, 2–38; Table 1) in a meta-analysis of six trials (AFASAK-I, SPAF-I, EAFT, ESPS-II, UK-TIA, and LASAF).20 The ESPS-II and UK-TIA studies involved patients with previous ischaemic stroke for secondary prevention, whereas LASAF randomized patients with AF for primary prevention. The meta-analysis also revealed that the absolute risk reduction for stroke was less for primary prevention (1.5% per year) than for secondary prevention (2.5%),20 reflecting the greater risk of stroke in subjects who have already had a cerebrovascular event.
When comparing warfarin and aspirin in meta-analyses of five trials (AFASAK-I, AFASAK-II, EAFT, PATAF, and SPAF-II; Table 1), warfarin was more efficacious than aspirin at reducing the rate of stroke (5.8 vs. 8.7%, RRR, 36%; 95% CI, 14–52).20 A pooled analysis of six trials (with SPAF-III added) showed a similar outcome (4.1 vs. 8.0%, RRR, 52%; 95% CI, 37–63).21 Overall, these results demonstrate that warfarin is superior to aspirin for primary and secondary prevention of stroke in patients with AF.
|
Acute intervention
|
|---|
In the 1980s, the most frequent indication for emergent anticoagulation
was prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with acute ischaemic
stroke, despite a lack of clinical trial evidence.
22 Over the
following years, six medium, large, or mega trials evaluated
the efficacy of heparin in patients with recent ischaemic stroke.
Three trials compared heparin [unfractionated heparin (UFH),
low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or heparinoid] with control
(FISS,
23 IST,
24 and TOAST
25) and three compared heparin (UFH,
LMWH) with aspirin (IST,
24 HAEST,
26 and TAIST
27). One trial
(TOPAS) examined four different doses of another LMWH without
a control group.
28 Only one of the trials specifically studied
patients with AF (HAEST).
26
Table 3 shows the incidence of recurrent stroke during the treatment period. Although the smallest of the trials, FISS, found a positive benefit of anticoagulation on functional outcome (combined death and dependency),23 the remaining studies were neutral. Similarly, none of the trials found an overall benefit with anticoagulation on early stroke recurrence. The largest trial, IST,24 showed that patients treated with UFH had significantly fewer early recurrent ischaemic strokes [2.9 vs. 3.5%; absolute risk reduction (ARR), 0.6%; P=0.005] but this was offset almost exactly by an increase in the risk of intracerebral haemorrhage (1.1 vs. 0.4%; ARR, –0.7%; P<0.001). IST was of sufficient size to assess efficacy and hazard in subgroups and did not find that patients with AF benefited from low or medium dose UFH.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3 Effect of anticoagulation on functional outcome (combined death and dependency at 3 or 6 months), recurrent stroke, and SICH in patients with acute ischaemic stroke
|
|
In a
post hoc analysis, TOAST found that dose-adjusted intravenous
danaparoid sodium (ORG 10172, a heparinoid) might improve functional
outcome in patients with presumed large artery ischaemic stroke,
29 although this was not found with weight adjusted tinzaparin
(LMWH) in TAIST,
27 nor in meta-analyses.
30 None of the studies
found efficacy in patients with presumed cardioembolic stroke
(secondary to AF).
30
Three trials compared heparin with aspirin. Aspirin-treated patients did not show a lower rate of recurrent stroke (2.1–7.5%) than those given an anticoagulant (3.2–8.5%) but had lower rates of intracranial bleeding (0.2–1.8% vs. 0.7–2.7%; Table 3). TOPAS examined the effect of different doses of certoparin: a two-fold increase in bleeding was observed in patients receiving the highest dose of certoparin when compared with the lowest dose (4 vs. 2%) in the uncontrolled TOPAS trial. Overall, anticoagulation does not appear to reduce functional dependency or early stroke recurrence in patients with acute ischaemic stroke but does promote significant intracranial and extracranial bleeding.31 As a result, aspirin is the first-line antithrombotic agent for use in patients with acute ischaemic stroke, including those with AF and presumed cardioembolism.
|
Bleeding
|
|---|
Two meta-analyses have assessed, the rates of major and intracranial
haemorrhage with antithrombotic therapy (primary and secondary
preventions;
Table 2).
20,32 The overall rate of major haemorrhage
was significantly higher with warfarin than that with placebo
[2.2 vs. 0.9%, odds ratio (OR), 2.35; 95% CI, 1.30–4.24].
The highest haemorrhage rate occurred in the EAFT secondary
prevention study (6 vs. 1.4%, OR, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.28–9.40).
The overall rate of major haemorrhage was also higher with warfarin
compared with aspirin (1.6 vs. 1.0%, OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.77–3.18).
Similarly, the rate of intracranial haemorrhage was doubled in patients taking warfarin when compared with those taking placebo (0.4 vs. 0.2%), and remained higher than with aspirin (1.2 vs. 0.5%). No intracranial haemorrhage events occurred in the warfarin-treated patients in the EAFT secondary prevention study and aspirin did not result in any greater risk of major bleeding or intracranial haemorrhage than control. Minor haemorrhage was increased two-fold with warfarin when compared with control, whereas it was rarely observed in the aspirin treatment arm.
|
International normalized ratio range
|
|---|
The target INR in the warfarin trials varied between 1.4 and
4.2 (
Table 1). Although two thirds of individuals who had a
recurrent ischaemic event had an INR<2.0, and intracerebral
haemorrhage was associated with a high INR >4.0–4.5,
it is generally recommended that the INR should be maintained
between 2.0 and 3.0 in patients with AF.
33,34 It should, however,
be noted that the INR was measured every 2–6 weeks in
the trials, i.e. more frequently than is typically undertaken
in clinical practice.
|
Patients of advanced age
|
|---|
Almost half of all AF-associated stroke occurs in patients >75
years old.
35–37 Clinical trials have tended to exclude
older patients, as in the five primary prevention trials (AFASAK,
BAATAF, CAFA, SPAF, and SPINAF), where only 20% of subjects
were aged >75 years.
8 As older individuals are at increased
risk of anticoagulant-related bleeding and of suffering from
relative or absolute contraindications to anticoagulation, they
are less likely to be treated with oral anticoagulation.
9 A
recent cohort study, including a significant proportion of elderly
patients (23% of
80 years of age),
38 found a RRR of 41% (95%
CI, 27–52) in ischaemic stroke and peripheral embolism
in patients taking warfarin. Warfarin therapy was associated
with a two-fold increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage when
compared with no warfarin therapy. A target INR of 1.6–2.5
39 or 1.75–2.25, is therefore generally considered to be
reasonably safe and effective in patients >70 years of age
with AF.
40
|
Disability
|
|---|
As with increasing age, patients with disability, and dependency
tend to be excluded from clinical trials. The primary prevention
trials assessing antithrombotic therapy in AF focussed on patients
with little comorbidity, whereas EAFT excluded patients with
significant residual disability following stroke. Similarly,
the acute intervention trials excluded patients with prior dependency
(typically those with a modified Rankin Scale of >2), usually
because the primary outcome comprised the composite of death
and dependency—interventions are unlikely to improve dependency
beyond its pre-morbid level. Hence, the role of anticoagulation
in such patients remains unclear.
|
Blood pressure
|
|---|
The risk of stroke is increased among patients who have hypertension.
41 Approximately 70% of strokes are associated with hypertension,
which is often less than ideally controlled.
42 Lowering blood
pressure is thus a central strategy in reducing the rate of
stroke. Indeed, a meta-analysis of 36 major randomized trials
evaluated the benefits of lowering blood pressure treatment
on reducing stroke risk.
43 Five trials of angiotensin-converting
enzyme (ACE)-inhibitor and four trials of calcium channel blockers
(CCB) compared active treatment with placebo. The reduction
of stroke risk was 28% (95% CI, 19–36) with ACE-inhibitor
and 38% (95% CI, 18–53) with CCBs, such that the reduction
of stroke seen with an ACE-inhibitor appeared to be less than
that for CCB (RRR, –12%; 95% CI, –25 to –1).
CCBs (nine trials), but not ACE-inhibitors (five trials), were
more effective at reducing stroke than diuretics or ß-blockers
(RRR, 7%; 95% CI, 0–14). Additionally, larger reductions
in blood pressure were associated with larger reductions in
stroke risk.
44
When considering trials specifically recruiting patients with prior stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), antihypertensive therapy was associated with significant reduction in the risk of stroke, 24% (95% CI, 8–37). When analysing individual drug class, ß-blockers did not appear to alter stroke rates. In contrast, stroke was reduced by 32% with diuretics, and by 45% (95% CI, 32–56) with the combination of an ACE-inhibitor and diuretic.45 Once again, a dose response was seen between the magnitude of blood pressure lowering and reduction in stroke.45
The effect of lowering blood pressure in patients with AF has only been studied within subgroup analyses of large trials. For example, 4% of patients (527 in total) had AF in the LIFE and SCOPE studies.46,47 Overall, an angiotensin-receptor antagonist reduced the incidence of stroke by 25% (95% CI, 11–37) when compared with a ß-blocker in the LIFE study, and by 24% (95% CI, –410 to 170) against control in the SCOPE study. Of the 324 patients with AF in the LIFE study, stroke was 49% lower in patients randomized to an angiotensin-receptor antagonist when compared with a ß-blocker (P=0.018).46
|
Lowering lipids
|
|---|
In addition to cardioembolism, atherothrombosis and its risk
factors are key causes of ischaemic stroke.
48 Patients with
AF often have other vascular risk factors, including hypercholesterolaemia.
Several randomized trials have demonstrated that lowering cholesterol
with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors
(statins) reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and stroke.
A recent meta-analysis reviewed 11 major clinical controlled
trials and compared the clinical benefit of reduction on the
composite vascular outcome comprising heart attack, stroke,
or death.
49 Over 5 years of follow up, the stroke risk was reduced
with atorvastatin (RRR, 41%),
50,51 simvastatin (RRR, 25–34%),
52,53 and pravastatin (RRR, 31%).
54–56 The analysis suggested
that the beneficial reduction in the rate of cardiovascular
events was independent of change in cholesterol concentration
and might be related to delaying the growth of vascular plaque.
No studies (or subgroup analyses within larger trials) assessing
the effect of lipid lowering in patients with AF have been reported
to date.
|
Future
|
|---|
A number of trials have found that dual antiplatelet therapy
can be more effective than monotherapy even when accounting
for safety, especially bleeding. For example, the combination
of aspirin and dipyridamole was superior to either drug alone
in preventing recurrence in patients with prior ischaemic stroke
or TIA.
19 Similarly, aspirin and clopidogrel were more effective
than aspirin alone in the CURE and CREDO trials involving patients
with ischaemic heart disease.
57,58 Four trials have compared
aspirin and ticlopidine vs. aspirin and warfarin in patients
undergoing coronary artery stent placement procedures. These
trials showed a trend in favour of the combination of aspirin
and ticlopidine, and two of the trials showed a statistically
significant benefit.
59–62 Bleeding rates were lower with
aspirin plus ticlopidine than with aspirin plus warfarin.
59–61 Similar studies have been performed with the combination of
aspirin and clopidogrel in patients having undergone stent insertion.
63,64 Although the pathophysiological mechanisms are different from
that occurring in AF, these trials of dual antiplatelet therapy
provide strong support for performing similar studies in patients
with AF, as is now planned.
65
Pathophysiological mechanisms underlying AF-induced thromboembolic events have been investigated in animal models. These experimental studies indicated that there is an inverse relationship between the nitric oxide production and the incidence of thromboembolic complications in the left atrial endocardium.66 Thus, local or systemic delivery of nitric oxide donors might prevent thromboembolic events associated with AF. Improvements in anticoagulation may also lead to further prevention of strokes. For example, fixed dose ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor not requiring coagulation monitoring, was as effective as warfarin and well-tolerated in preventing stroke in patients with AF in two trials (SPORTIF III and V).67,68 Another approach involves surgical excision or removal of the left atrial appendage as this is the source of many cardioembolic events in AF.69,70 Such novel approaches may be alternatives to warfarin therapy.
|
Acknowledgements
|
|---|
Thrombosis Quorum is supported by an educational grant from
AstraZeneca. This Supplement has been developed as part of the
Thrombosis Quorum initiative, under the direction of the Thrombosis
Quorum Steering Group [G. Agnelli (Chairman), P. Bath, J. Emmerich,
B. Gersh, M. Ögren, S. Schulman, and J. Weitz].
|
Conflict of interest
|
|---|
P. Bath has consulted for AstraZeneca and given lectures at
sponsored symposia.
|
References
|
|---|
- Fuster V, Ryden LE, Asinger RW et al. ACC/AHA/ESC guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: executive summary. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;38:1231–1266.[Free Full Text]
- Wolf PA, Dawber TR, Thomas HE Jr et al. Epidemiologic assessment of chronic atrial fibrillation and risk of stroke: the Framingham study. Neurology 1978;28:973–977.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Petersen P, Boysen G, Godtfredsen J et al. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation. The Copenhagen AFASAK study. Lancet 1989;1:175–179.[Web of Science][Medline]
- The Boston area anticoagulation trial for atrial fibrillation investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1505–1511.[Abstract]
- Connolly SJ, Laupacis A, Gent M et al. Canadian Atrial Fibrillation Anticoagulation (CAFA) Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 1991;18:349–355.[Abstract]
- Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation investigators. Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation study. Final results. Circulation 1991;84:527–539.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Ezekowitz M, Bridgers S, James K et al. Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. Veterans Affairs Stroke Prevention in Nonrheumatic Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. N Engl J Med 1992;327:1406–1412.[Abstract]
- Risk factors for stroke and efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation. Analysis of pooled data from randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med 1994;154:1449–1457.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Landefeld CS, Goldman L. Major bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin: incidence and prediction by factors known at the start of outpatient therapy. Am J Med 1989;87:144–152.[Web of Science][Medline]
- Gullov AL, Koefoed BG, Petersen P et al. Fixed minidose warfarin and aspirin alone and in combination vs adjusted-dose warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: Second Copenhagen Atrial Fibrillation, Aspirin, and Anticoagulation Study. Arch Intern Med 1998;158:1513–1521.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hellemons BSP, Langenberg M, Lodder J et al. Primary prevention of arterial thromboembolism in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation in primary care: randomised controlled trial comparing two intensities of coumarin with aspirin. BMJ 1999;319:958–964.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Morocutti C, Amabile G, Fattapposta F et al. Indobufen versus warfarin in the secondary prevention of major vascular events in nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. SIFA (Studio Italiano Fibrillazione Atriale) Investigators. Stroke 1997;28:1015–1021.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Warfarin versus aspirin for prevention of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation: stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation II study. Lancet 1994;343:687–691.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- The SPAF III Writing Committee for the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at low risk of stroke during treatment with aspirin: stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation III study. JAMA 1998;279:1273–1277.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Taylor FC, Cohen H, Ebrahim S. Systematic review of long term anticoagulation or antiplatelet treatment in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. BMJ 2001;322:321–326.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. Lancet 1993;342:1255–1262.[Web of Science][Medline]
- Saxena R, Koudstaal PJ. Anticoagulants for preventing stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;2:CD000185.
- Saxena R, Koudstaal P. Anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy for preventing stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and a history of stroke or transient ischemic attack. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD000187.
- Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C et al. European Stroke Prevention Study 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci 1996;143:1–13.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Hart RG, Benavente O, McBride R et al. Antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 1999;131:492–501.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- van Walraven C, Hart RG, Singer DE et al. Oral anticoagulants vs aspirin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: an individual patient meta-analysis. JAMA 2002;288:2441–2448.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Marsh EE 3rd, Adams HP Jr, Biller J et al. Use of antithrombotic drugs in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a survey of neurologists in practice in the United States. Neurology 1989;39:1631–1634.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Kay R, Wong KS, Yu YL et al. Low-molecular-weight heparin for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1588–1593.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. The International Stroke Trial (IST); a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet 1997;349:1569–1581.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- The Publications Committee for the Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Investigators. Low molecular weight heparinoid, ORG 10172 (danaparoid), and outcome after acute ischemic stroke. JAMA 1998;279:1265–1272.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Berge E, Abdelnoor M, Nakstad PH et al. Low molecular-weight heparin versus aspirin in patients with acute ischaemic stroke and atrial fibrillation: a double-blind randomised study. Lancet 2000;355:1205–1210.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Bath PM, Lindenstrom E, Boysen G et al. Tinzaparin in acute ischaemic stroke (TAIST): a randomised aspirin-controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358:702–710.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Diener HC, Ringelstein EB, von Kummer R et al. Treatment of acute ischemic stroke with the low-molecular-weight heparin certoparin: results of the TOPAS trial. Therapy of Patients With Acute Stroke (TOPAS) Investigators. Stroke 2001;32:22–29.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Adams HP Jr, Bendixen BH, Leira E et al. Antithrombotic treatment of ischemic stroke among patients with occlusion or severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery: A report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST). Neurology 1999;53:122–125.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bath PM, Iddenden R, Bath FJ. Low-molecular-weight heparins and heparinoids in acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Stroke 2000;31:1770–1778.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Adams HP Jr. Emergent use of anticoagulation for treatment of patients with ischemic stroke. Stroke 2002;33:856–861.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Segal JB, McNamara RL, Miller MR et al. Anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy for non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation and flutter. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001;1:CD001938.
- Singer DE, Albers GW, Dalen JE et al. Antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 2004;126(Suppl. 3):429S–456S.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hylek EM, Go AS, Chang Y et al. Effect of intensity of oral anticoagulation on stroke severity and mortality in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 2003;349:1019–1026.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Wolf P, Abbott R, Kannel W. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke 1991;22:983–988.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Moulton AW, Singer DE, Haas JS. Risk factors for stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation: a case–control study. Am J Med 1991;91:156–161.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Boysen G, Nyboe J, Appleyard M et al. Stroke incidence and risk factors for stroke in Copenhagen, Denmark. Stroke 1988;19:1345–1353.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Go AS, Hylek EM, Chang Y et al. Anticoagulation therapy for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: how well do randomized trials translate into clinical practice? JAMA 2003;290:2685–2692.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hart RG, Sherman DG, Easton JD et al. Prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Neurology 1998;51:674–681.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Yamaguchi T. Optimal intensity of warfarin therapy for secondary prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Japanese Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation-Embolism Secondary Prevention Cooperative Study Group. Stroke 2000;31:817–821.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- O'Rourke F, Dean N, Akhtar N et al. Current and future concepts in stroke prevention. Can Med Assoc J 2004;170:1123–1133.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Taylor CT, Stamm P, Taylor KH. Management of ischemic stroke in geriatric patients. Pharmacol Ther 2002;27:495–499.
- Turnbull F. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2003;362:1527–1535.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Staessen JA, Wang J-G, Thijs L. Cardiovascular protection and blood pressure reduction: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2001;358:1305–1315.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Rashid P, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath P. Blood pressure reduction and secondary prevention of stroke and other vascular events: a systematic review. Stroke 2003;34:2741–2748.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Dahlof B, Devereux RB, Kjeldsen SE et al. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 2002;359:995–1003.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Lithell H, Hansson L, Skoog I et al. The Study on Cognition and Prognosis in the Elderly (SCOPE): principal results of a randomized double-blind intervention trial. J Hypertens 2003;21:875–886.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Hankey GJ, Jamrozik K, Broadhurst RJ et al. Long-term risk of first recurrent stroke in the Perth Community Stroke Study. Stroke 1998;29:2491–2500.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Gresser U, Gathof BS. Atorvastatin: gold standard for prophylaxis of myocardial ischemia and stroke - comparison of the clinical benefit of statins on the basis of randomized controlled endpoint studies. Eur J Med Res 2004;9:1–17.[Web of Science][Medline]
- Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Ezekowitz MD et al. Effects of atorvastatin on early recurrent ischemic events in acute coronary syndromes: the MIRACL study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285:1711–1718.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sever PS, Dahlof B, Poulter NR et al. Prevention of coronary and stroke events with atorvastatin in hypertensive patients who have average or lower-than-average cholesterol concentrations, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial – Lipid Lowering Arm (ASCOT-LLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:1149–1158.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7–22.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. Effects of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin on stroke and other major vascular events in 20536 people with cerebrovascular disease or other high-risk conditions. Lancet 2004;363:757–767.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I et al. Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N Engl J Med 1995;333:1301–1307.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Sacks FM, Pfeffer MA, Moye LA et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. Cholesterol and Recurrent Events Trial investigators. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1001–1009.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:1623–1630.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- The Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001;345:494–502.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann JT III et al. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:2411–2420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Schomig A, Neumann F-J, Kastrati A et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 1996;334:1084–1089.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Urban P, Macaya C, Rupprecht H-J et al. Randomized evaluation of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy after coronary stent implantation in high-risk patients: the multicenter aspirin and ticlopidine trial after intracoronary stenting (MATTIS). Circulation 1998;98:2126–2132.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bertrand ME, Legrand V, Boland J et al. Randomized multicenter comparison of conventional anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in unplanned and elective coronary stenting. The full anticoagulation versus aspirin and ticlopidine (FANTASTIC) Study. Circulation 1998;98:1597–1603.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Leon MB, Baim DS, Popma JJ et al. A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1665–1671.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Muller C, Buttner HJ, Petersen J et al. A randomized comparison of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin after the placement of coronary-artery stents. Circulation 2000;101:590–593.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Bertrand ME, Rupprecht H-J, Urban P et al. Double-blind study of the safety of clopidogrel with and without a loading dose in combination with aspirin compared with ticlopidine in combination with aspirin after coronary stenting: the clopidogrel aspirin stent international cooperative study (CLASSICS). Circulation 2000;102:624–629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hohnloser SH, Connolly SJ. Combined antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation: review of the literature and future avenues. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2003;14:S60–S63.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Rubart M, Zipes DP. NO hope for patients with atrial fibrillation. Circulation 2002;106:2764–2766.[Free Full Text]
- Executive Steering Committee on behalf of the SPORTIF III Investigators. Stroke prevention with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (SPORTIF III): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:1691–1698.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- SPORTIF Executive Steering Committee for the SPORTIF V Investigators. Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial. JAMA 2005; 293:690–698.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Reisman M, Gray W, Sievert H et al. An endovascular approach to stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: results of the multicenter PLAATO (Percutaneous Left Atrial Appendage Transcatter Occlusion) feasibility trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003;41(Suppl. 1):A103.
- Gillinov AM, Blackstone EH, McCarthy PM. Atrial fibrillation: current surgical options and their assessment. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:2210–2217.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Top
Abstract
Introduction