The New England journal of medicine 2019-05-16
Dabigatran for Prevention of Stroke after Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.
Abstract
Background
Cryptogenic strokes constitute 20 to 30% of ischemic strokes, and most cryptogenic strokes are considered to be embolic and of undetermined source. An earlier randomized trial showed that rivaroxaban is no more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke after a presumed embolic stroke from an undetermined source. Whether dabigatran would be effective in preventing recurrent strokes after this type of stroke was unclear.
Methods
We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial of dabigatran at a dose of 150 mg or 110 mg twice daily as compared with aspirin at a dose of 100 mg once daily in patients who had had an embolic stroke of undetermined source. The primary outcome was recurrent stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding.
Results
A total of 5390 patients were enrolled at 564 sites and were randomly assigned to receive dabigatran (2695 patients) or aspirin (2695 patients). During a median follow-up of 19 months, recurrent strokes occurred in 177 patients (6.6%) in the dabigatran group (4.1% per year) and in 207 patients (7.7%) in the aspirin group (4.8% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.03; P = 0.10). Ischemic strokes occurred in 172 patients (4.0% per year) and 203 patients (4.7% per year), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.03). Major bleeding occurred in 77 patients (1.7% per year) in the dabigatran group and in 64 patients (1.4% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.66). Clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 70 patients (1.6% per year) and 41 patients (0.9% per year), respectively.
Conclusions
In patients with a recent history of embolic stroke of undetermined source, dabigatran was not superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke. The incidence of major bleeding was not greater in the dabigatran group than in the aspirin group, but there were more clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events in the dabigatran group. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; RE-SPECT ESUS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02239120.).
Related Questions
When do you use anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention in patients with LV injury or dysfunction?
First, I will observe that the recent work is a cohort study, not an RCT< and I would be careful about concluding that anticoagulation is the best approach. We have had prior trials, e.g., WARCEF and the related ESUS trials (NAVIGATE and RESPECT), and others that have looked at possible cardioemboli...
When do you start anticoagulation for secondary prevention in patients with HFrEF and history of embolic strokes?
Current guidelines consider anticoagulation in patients with reduced EF as class III (no benefit and possibility of harm), which has not changed significantly since WARCEF was published. The most recent randomized large trial, COMMANDER HF, looked at primary stroke prevention (among other thrombotic...