MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4288428459 · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.24157

Analysis of Prescriptions for Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Ischemic Stroke

2022· article· en· W4288428459 sur OpenAlexaff
Ying Xian, Haolin Xu, Roland Matsouaka, Daniel T. Laskowitz, Lesley Maisch, Deidre Hannah, Eric E. Smith, Gregg C. Fonarow, Deepak L. Bhatt, Lee H. Schwamm, Brian Mac Grory, Wuwei Feng, Emil Loldrup Fosbøl, Eric D. Peterson, Mark D. Johnson

Notice bibliographique

RevueJAMA Network Open · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Établissements canadiensHotchkiss Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Stroke AssociationAlexion PharmaceuticalsNovo NordiskAmerican Heart AssociationSanofiAstraZenecaNational Institute on AgingEli Lilly and Company
Mots-clésMedicineClopidogrelStroke (engine)AspirinMinor strokeMedical prescriptionInternal medicineIschemic strokePlatelet aggregation inhibitorCardiologyAcute coronary syndromeEmergency medicinePhysical therapyMyocardial infarctionIschemia

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Importance: After the publication of the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High Risk Patients With Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) and POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Ischemic Stroke) clinical trials, the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) issued a new class 1, level of evidence A, recommendation for dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; aspirin plus clopidogrel) for secondary prevention in patients with minor ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤3). The extent to which variations in DAPT prescribing patterns remain and the extent to which practice patterns in the US are consistent with evidence-based guidelines are unknown. Objective: To evaluate the discharge DAPT prescribing patterns after publication of the new AHA/ASA guidelines and assess the extent of hospital-level variation in the use of DAPT for secondary prevention in patients with minor stroke (NIHSS score ≤3), as indicated by guidelines, and in patients with nonminor stroke (NIHSS score >3), for whom the risks and benefits of DAPT have not been fully established. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter retrospective cohort study involved 132 817 patients from 1890 hospitals participating in the AHA/ASA Get With The Guidelines-Stroke program. Patients who were hospitalized for acute ischemic stroke and prescribed antiplatelet therapy at discharge between October 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, were included. Exposures: Minor ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤3) vs nonminor ischemic stroke (NIHSS score >3). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was DAPT prescription at discharge. The extent to which variations in DAPT use were explained at the hospital level was assessed by calculating the median odds ratio (OR), which was derived using multivariable logistic regression analysis and compared the likelihood that 2 patients with identical clinical features admitted to 2 randomly selected hospitals (1 with higher propensity and 1 with lower propensity for DAPT use) would receive DAPT at discharge. Associations between hospital-level DAPT use among patients with minor vs nonminor stroke were evaluated using Pearson ρ correlation coefficients. Results: Among 132 817 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [59-78] years; 68 768 men [51.8%]), 4282 (3.2%) were Asian, 11 254 (8.5%) were Hispanic, 27 221 (20.5%) were non-Hispanic Black, 84 468 (63.6%) were non-Hispanic White, and 5592 (4.2%) were of other races and/or ethnicities (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and unable to determine). Overall, 86 551 patients (65.2%) presented with minor ischemic stroke, and 46 266 patients (34.8%) presented with nonminor ischemic stroke. After the 2019 AHA/ASA guideline updates, 40 661 patients (47.0%) with minor stroke (NIHSS median [IQR] score, 1 [0-2]) and 19 703 patients (42.6%) with nonminor stroke (NIHSS median [IQR] score, 6 [5-9]) received DAPT at discharge. Despite guideline recommendations, 45 890 patients (53.0%) with minor stroke did not receive DAPT. After accounting for patient characteristics, substantial hospital-level variations were found in the use of DAPT in those with minor stroke (median [IQR] hospital-level DAPT prescription rate, 44.8% [33.7%-57.7%]; range, 0%-91.7%; median OR, 2.03 [95% CI, 1.97-2.09]) when comparing 2 patients with identical risk factors discharged from 2 randomly selected hospitals, 1 with higher propensity and 1 with lower propensity for DAPT use. The use of DAPT in patients with nonminor stroke also varied significantly (median [IQR] hospital-level DAPT prescription rate, 41.4% [30.0%-53.8%]; range, 0%-100%; median OR, 1.90 [95% CI, 1.83-1.97]). Overall, hospitals that were more likely to prescribe DAPT for minor strokes were also more likely to prescribe DAPT for nonminor strokes (Pearson ρ = 0.72; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that despite updated AHA/ASA guidelines, more than 50% of patients with minor acute ischemic stroke did not receive DAPT at discharge. In contrast, more than 40% of patients with nonminor stroke received DAPT despite lack of evidence in this setting. These findings suggest that enhancing adherence to evidence-based DAPT practice guidelines may be a target for quality improvement in the treatment of patients with ischemic stroke.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,478
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,019
Tête enseignante GPT0,282
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations38
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJAMA Network OpenMême sujetAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesTravaux en français237 207