Abstract WP424: Efficacy Of Antiplatelet Therapy For Secondary Stroke Prevention Following Lacunar Stroke: A Meta-analysis And Pooled Analysis Of Randomized Controlled Trials

• Published in: Stroke (1970) 2013-02, Vol.44 (suppl_1)
• Main Authors: Shoamanesh, Ashkan, Kwok, Chun Shing, Myint, Phyo K, Loke, Yoon K, Copley, Hannah, Benavente, Oscar R
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0039-2499; 1524-4628
• DOI: 10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.AWP424

Abstract only INTRODUCTION: The predominant underlying mechanism of lacunar stroke differs from that of other ischemic stroke subtypes. Accordingly, so may the ideal stroke prevention regimen. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different antiplatelet agents in lacunar stroke patients. Method: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane library for RCTs that evaluated antiplatelet therapy in patients with ischemic stroke. Trials which provided stroke recurrence rates in patients presenting with lacunar stroke, or where the data was obtainable from manuscript authors were included. In addition, we included the novel SPS3 trial’s antiplatelet arm data presented at the 2011 ISC. We performed pooled analysis to assess the crude frequency of recurrent stroke and a random effects meta-analysis. Results: Lacunar stroke data was available for 12 trials encompassing 35, 218 participants (mean age 65, 65% male). The pooled crude recurrent stroke rate was least for cilostazol monotherapy (6.2%), followed by ASA monotherapy (7.4%), clopidogrel monotherapy (8.6%), ASA/dipyridamole (8.6%) and greatest for ASA/clopidogrel therapy (9.1%). Rate ratios of lacunar stroke patients suggest no significant efficacy advantage for ASA [ASA vs placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34-1.50; p=0.38)], ASA/clopidogrel [ASA/clopidogrel vs ASA (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.03; p=0.08), ASA/clopidogrel vs clopidogrel (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.79-1.15; p=0.63)], sarpogrelate [sarpogrelate vs ASA (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.84-2.04; p=0.23)] and ASA/dipyridamole [ASA/dipyridamole vs ASA (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.70-1.16; p=0.042)] for recurrent stroke. The results from Japanese trials evaluating the efficacy of cilostazol found that it is significantly better than both placebo (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.85; p=0.01) and ASA (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.96; p=0.03) in the secondary prevention of stroke. Conclusions: There seems to be no significant advantage among the various antiplatelet agents studied in lacunar stroke patients apart for cilostazol. However, this requires confirmation within large randomized trials outside of Japanese populations.