The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of future stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. The guideline is addressed to all clinicians who manage secondary prevention for these patients. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for control of risk factors, intervention for vascular obstruction, antithrombotic therapy for cardioembolism, and antiplatelet therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. Recommendations are also provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of specific circumstances, including aortic arch atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, patent foramen ovale, hyperhomocysteinemia, hypercoagulable states, antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, sickle cell disease, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and pregnancy. Special sections address use of antithrombotic and anticoagulation therapy after an intracranial hemorrhage and implementation of guidelines.

/pdf/guidelines-for-the-prevention-of-stroke-in-patients-with-4s66xf1dte.pdf

Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association

The aim of this updated statement is to provide comprehensive and timely evidence-based recommendations on the prevention of ischemic stroke among survivors of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Evidence-based recommendations are included for the control of risk factors, interventional approaches for atherosclerotic disease, antithrombotic treatments for cardioembolism, and the use of antiplatelet agents for noncardioembolic stroke. Further recommendations are provided for the prevention of recurrent stroke in a variety of other specific circumstances, including arterial dissections; patent foramen ovale; hyperhomocysteinemia; hypercoagulable states; sickle cell disease; cerebral venous sinus thrombosis; stroke among women, particularly with regard to pregnancy and the use of postmenopausal hormones; the use of anticoagulation after cerebral hemorrhage; and special approaches to the implementation of guidelines and their use in high-risk populations.

Guidelines for the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack

The recent US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “boxed warning” on clopidogrel raises important questions for practitioners and patients. The warning addresses the need for pharmacogenomic testing to identify patients’ altered clopidogrel metabolism and thus their risk for a suboptimal clinical response to clopidogrel. Although there is an expanding database on genetic polymorphisms that may affect clopidogrel metabolism and thus clinical outcomes, there are no evidence-based data upon which todevelop specific recommendations on the role of genetic testing in routine care nor strategies proven to improve the safety/efficacy of specific pharmacologic approaches.\n\nTo provide guidance on this issue, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) convened a writing committee. The ACCF and AHA adhere to a rigorous policy regarding relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) of authors and peer reviewers for clinical document development (see http://www.cardiosource.org/Science-And-Quality/Practice-Guidelines-and-Quality-Standards/Relationships-With-Industry-Policy.aspx). This policy requires that a majority of writing committee members have no relevant relationships with industry to this topic, a standard that has been achieved for this document as indicated in Appendix 1. In the spirit of full disclosure, comprehensive RWI (RWI not relevant to this document) for all authors is available online for public view. RWI …

ACCF/AHA Clopidogrel Clinical Alert: Approaches to the FDA “Boxed Warning” A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association

Summary Background The antiplatelet drug cilostazol is efficacious for prevention of stroke recurrence compared with placebo. We designed the second Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study (CSPS 2) to establish non-inferiority of cilostazol versus aspirin for prevention of stroke, and to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol and aspirin in patients with non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke. Methods Patients aged 20–79 years who had had a cerebral infarction within the previous 26 weeks were enrolled at 278 sites in Japan and allocated to receive 100 mg cilostazol twice daily or 81 mg aspirin once daily for 1–5 years. Patients were allocated according to a computer-generated randomisation sequence by means of a dynamic balancing method using patient information obtained at registration. All patients, study personnel, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of stroke (cerebral infarction, cerebral haemorrhage, or subarachnoid haemorrhage). The predefined margin of non-inferiority was an upper 95% CI limit for the hazard ratio of 1·33. Analyses were by full-analysis set. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00234065. Findings Between December, 2003, and October, 2006, 2757 patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive cilostazol (n=1379) or aspirin (n=1378), of whom 1337 on cilostazol and 1335 on aspirin were included in analyses; mean follow-up was 29 months (SD 16). The primary endpoint occurred at yearly rates of 2·76% (n=82) in the cilostazol group and 3·71% (n=119) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio 0·743, 95% CI 0·564–0·981; p=0·0357). Haemorrhagic events (cerebral haemorrhage, subarachnoid haemorrhage, or haemorrhage requiring hospital admission) occurred in fewer patients on cilostazol (0·77%, n=23) than on aspirin (1·78%, n=57; 0·458, 0·296–0·711; p=0·0004), but headache, diarrhoea, palpitation, dizziness, and tachycardia were more frequent in the cilostazol group than in the aspirin group. Interpretation Cilostazol seems to be non-inferior, and might be superior, to aspirin for prevention of stroke after an ischaemic stroke, and was associated with fewer haemorrhagic events. Therefore, cilostazol could be used for prevention of stroke in patients with non-cardioembolic stroke. Funding Otsuka Pharmaceutical.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474-4422(10)70198-8.pdf

Cilostazol for prevention of secondary stroke (CSPS 2): an aspirin-controlled, double-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial.

https://www.zonaseguracontralatrombosis.org/sites/default/files/u1/19_terapia_antitrombotica_y_trombolitica_para_acv_isquemico.pdf

Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy for Ischemic Stroke: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

Summary Background Most patients who have had a stroke are given aspirin; however, aspirin-related cerebral haemorrhage is a complication that is currently of concern, particularly in China where there is a high incidence of cerebral haemorrhage in secondary prevention programmes and within the community. Cilostazol, a phosphodiesterase 3 (PDE3) inhibitor, is an alternative to aspirin that works through a different mechanism. This trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of cilostazol with that of aspirin for the long-term prevention of the recurrence of ischaemic stroke. Methods 720 patients (mean age 60·2 years, SD 9·86) who had had an ischaemic stroke within the previous 1–6 months were enrolled consecutively in a prospective, multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial. 360 patients were randomly assigned to receive cilostazol and 360 patients to receive aspirin. Analysis was by intention to treat. Patients in both groups took the medication for 12–18 months. The primary endpoint was any recurrence of stroke (ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, or subarachnoid haemorrhage) during the trial period. All patients had MRI with T1 MRI, T2 MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), and T2 gradient echo imaging (T2*) at the beginning and the end of the study. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00202020. Findings The average duration of treatment was 740 person-years, and 719 patients were analysed (360 in the cilostazol group and 359 in the aspirin group). The primary endpoint was reported in 12 patients in the cilostazol group and in 20 patients in the aspirin group. The estimated hazard ratio, calculated with Kaplan–Meier curves (risk of primary endpoint in cilostazol group vs aspirin group), was 0·62 (95% CI 0·30–1·26; p=0·185). Symptomatic cerebral haemorrhage was reported in six patients: one in the cilostazol group and five in the aspirin group. Asymptomatic cerebral haematoma was found in four patients in the aspirin group and one patient in the cilostazol group. Brain bleeding events were significantly more common in the aspirin group than in the cilostazol group (7 vs 1, p=0·034). All of the six patients with symptomatic haemorrhage had previous cerebral microbleeds in the area where the haematoma was located. Interpretation The results of this pilot study showed no significant difference in the rate of recurrence of stroke between patients with ischaemic stroke who were randomly assigned to take either cilostazol or aspirin. The lower rates of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in the cilostazol group suggest that cilostazol might be a more effective and safer alternative to aspirin for Chinese patients with ischaemic stroke; however, a larger phase III trial is required to confirm this. Funding National Health Ministry of the People's Republic of China; Otsuka Pharmaceutical.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laneur/PIIS1474-4422(08)70094-2.pdf

Jiangxi Xiao

Papers

Cilostazol as an alternative to aspirin after ischaemic stroke: a randomised, double-blind, pilot study