ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2017
Interruption to antiplatelet therapy early after acute ischaemic stroke: a nested case-control study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Interruption to antiplatelet therapy early after acute ischaemic stroke: a nested case-control study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsAntiplatelet drugs are often discontinued early after ischaemic stroke, either because of poor compliance, complications or withdrawal of care. It is unclear whether this places patients at increased risk of recurrence. We explored the association between cardiovascular event rate and persistence with prescribed antiplatelet drugs.
methodsWe used a matched case-control design using the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). Cases were patients who had an acute coronary syndrome, recurrent stroke or transient ischaemic attack within 90 days post-stroke and were matched for age ± 10 years and sex with up to four controls. Antiplatelet use was categorized as persistent (used for >3 days and continued up to day 90), early cessation (used antiplatelet <3 days) or stopped/interrupted users (used for >3 days but stopped prior to day 90). These categories were compared in cases and controls using a conditional logistic regression model that adjusted for potential confounders.
resultsA total of 970 patients were included, of whom 194 were cases and 776 were matched controls. At 90 days, 10 cases (5.2%) and 58 controls (7.5%) stopped/interrupted their antiplatelet. The risk of cardiovascular event was not different in stopped/interrupted users (adjusted odds ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.33, 1.48; P = 0.352) and early cessations (adjusted odds ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.62, 1.74; P = 0.876) when compared to persistent users.
conclusionWe found no increased risk in patients who stopped and interrupted antiplatelets early after stroke but the study was limited by a small sample size and further research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.