Abstract 4142748: Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients with Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

dc.contributor.authorJuan Armando Talavera
dc.contributor.authorLarissa Teixeira
dc.contributor.authorThomaz Alexandre Costa
dc.contributor.authorDenilsa Navalha
dc.contributor.authorTathiane Gibicoski
dc.contributor.authorNicole Fernandez
dc.contributor.authorLuciana Armaganijan
dc.contributor.authorGuilherme Dagostin de Carvalho
dc.coverage.spatialBolivia
dc.date.accessioned2026-03-22T19:25:39Z
dc.date.available2026-03-22T19:25:39Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.description.abstractBackground: Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) represents approximately 20% of ischemic strokes. The optimal treatment strategy for secondary prevention remains uncertain for patients with ESUS. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus aspirin therapy in patients with a history of ESUS. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of science databases were systematically searched for eligible trials until March 2024. The primary outcome of interest was recurrent stroke. Major bleeding and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB) were assessed as safety outcomes. We pooled hazard rations (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for analysis. Results: Four RCTs comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus aspirin were included comprising 13,970 patients, of whom 6,989 (50%) were randomized to the DOACs group. The mean follow-up was 16 months. Compared to aspirin, DOACs did not reduce the incidence of recurrent stroke (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.81-1.09; p=0.44), ischemic stroke (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.79-1.06; p=0.23), all-cause mortality (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.42; p=0.40), and major bleeding (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 0.85%-2.86; p=0.15). However, patients in the DOACs group presented significantly higher incidence of CRNMB (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.23-1.92; p=0.0002) when compared with the aspirin group. Conclusion: Compared with aspirin, DOACs use was associated with an elevated risk of CRNMB and did not demonstrate superior efficacy in preventing recurrent stroke among patients with ESUS. <div class="acfifjfajpekbmhmjppnmmjgmhjkildl" id="acfifjfajpekbmhmjppnmmjgmhjkildl"> </div> <div class="acfifjfajpekbmhmjppnmmjgmhjkildl" id="acfifjfajpekbmhmjppnmmjgmhjkildl"> </div>
dc.identifier.doi10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4142748
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4142748
dc.identifier.urihttps://andeanlibrary.org/handle/123456789/75989
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.relation.ispartofCirculation
dc.sourceMount Sinai Medical Center
dc.subjectMedicine
dc.subjectAspirin
dc.subjectStroke (engine)
dc.subjectMeta-analysis
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trial
dc.subjectEmbolic stroke
dc.subjectInternal medicine
dc.subjectSecondary prevention
dc.subjectCardiology
dc.subjectIntensive care medicine
dc.titleAbstract 4142748: Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Aspirin for Secondary Stroke Prevention in Patients with Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
dc.typearticle

Files