Triple or Double? Safety Holds Steady in Acute Stenting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Acute stenting is typically performed for patients presenting with focal neurological deficits due to intracranial or extracranial atherosclerotic stenosis. Following the procedure, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen is commonly prescribed to reduce the risk of in-stent thrombosis. However, very few studies have examined safety outcomes in patients already on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) who undergo acute carotid or intracranial stenting with subsequent dual anti-platelet regimen (DAPT). The combination of DOAC and DAPT, referred here as triple therapy, is controversial given the increased risk of hemorrhagic transformation. This retrospective cohort study aims to analyze the safety of triple therapy in patients who undergo acute carotid or intracranial stenting by assessing the rates of adverse outcomes of patients whether they were on triple therapy with DOACs and DAPT, or DAPT only. Methods: A prospectively maintained endovascular database was reviewed to identify patients ongoing only acute carotid or intracranial stenting between 2013 and 2025 at a comprehensive stroke center. Patients were categorized based on whether they were managed with oral anticoagulation prior to acute stenting. Collected demographic data included age, gender, BMI (body mass index), manual ASPECTS (Alberta Stroke Program Early CT score), stroke risk factors, and admissions NIHSS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) scores. Safety and functional outcomes assessed include hemorrhagic transformation, mass effect, mortality, symptomatic and asymptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and mRS (modified Rankin Scale) scores at discharge and three months. Patients with missing variables were excluded from analysis of that variable. No triple therapy patients had a recorded NIHSS score at three months leading to exclusion of the variable in analysis. Results: Of the 58 patients who met inclusion criteria of acute stenting, 18 were already on DOACs, 72.2% of whom are male. Based on patient demographics, there was a significant difference in rates of coronary artery disease (CAD, 44.4% triple therapy cohort vs. 12.5% DAPT-only cohort, p=0.014) and hyperlipidemia (HLD, 77.8% triple therapy cohort vs. 45.0% DAPT-only cohort, p=0.025). After adjusting for NIHSS score on admission, age, CAD, and HLD, discharge mRS was found to be significantly lower in the triple therapy group median [IQR] of 3.5 [1.75-4] in the triple therapy group vs. 4 [3-5] in the DAPT only group. All other safety and functional outcomes displayed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. Conclusion: Patients undergoing acute carotid or intracranial stenting who are already on anticoagulation therapy may be safely managed with a triple-therapy regimen. Our findings demonstrate improved functional outcomes at discharge and show no significant difference in safety or other functional outcomes, supporting the safe and effective use of triple therapy in patients undergoing acute stenting.
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 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».