Direct oral anticoagulants versus no anticoagulation for the prevention of stroke in survivors of intracerebral haemorrhage with atrial fibrillation (PRESTIGE-AF): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) reduce the rate of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation but the benefits and risks in survivors of intracerebral haemorrhage are uncertain. We aimed to determine whether DOACs reduce the risk of ischaemic stroke without substantially increasing the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. METHODS: PRESTIGE-AF is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial conducted at 75 hospitals in six European countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage, atrial fibrillation, an indication for anticoagulation, and a score of 4 or less on the modified Rankin Scale. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to a DOAC or no anticoagulation, stratified by intracerebral haemorrhage location and sex. Only the events adjudication committee was masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary endpoints were first ischaemic stroke and first recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. Hierarchical testing for superiority and non-inferiority, respectively, was performed in the intention-to-treat population. The margin to establish non-inferiority regarding intracerebral haemorrhage was less than 1·735. The safety analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03996772, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between May 31, 2019, and Nov 30, 2023, 319 participants were enrolled and 158 were randomly assigned to the DOAC group and 161 to the no anticoagulant group. Patients' median age was 79 years (IQR 73-83). 113 (35%) of 319 patients were female and 206 (65%) were male. Median follow-up was 1·4 years (IQR 0·7-2·3). First ischaemic stroke occurred less frequently in the DOAC group than in the no anticoagulant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·05 [95% CI 0·01-0·36]; log-rank p<0·0001). The rate of all ischaemic stroke events was 0·83 (95% CI 0·14-2·57) per 100 patient-years in the DOAC group versus 8·60 (5·43-12·80) per 100 patient-years in the no anticoagulant group. For first recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage, the DOAC group did not meet the prespecified HR for the non-inferiority margin of less than 1·735 (HR 10·89 [90% CI 1·95-60·72]; p=0·96). The event rate of all intracerebral haemorrhage was 5·00 (95% CI 2·68-8·39) per 100 patient-years in the DOAC group versus 0·82 (0·14-2·53) per 100 patient years in the no anticoagulant group. Serious adverse events occurred in 70 (44%) of 158 patients in the DOAC group and 89 (55%) of 161 patients in the no anticoagulant group. 16 (10%) patients in the DOAC group and 21 (13%) patients in the no anticoagulant group died. INTERPRETATION: DOACs effectively prevent ischaemic strokes in survivors of intracerebral haemorrhage with atrial fibrillation but a part of this benefit is offset by a substantially increased risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. To optimise stroke prevention in these vulnerable patients, further evidence from ongoing trials and a meta-analysis of randomised data is needed, as well as the evaluation of safer medical or mechanical alternatives for selected patients. FUNDING: European Commission.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».