Anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in patients with embolic stroke of unknown source: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) carries a substantial clinical burden due to high stroke recurrence rate.(1) Recent randomised trials have tested whether anticoagulation is more effective than antiplatelet therapy in ESUS patients. Although anticoagulation is not superior to antiplatelet therapy in this setting, the full safety profile of anti-coagulation compared to anti-platelet therapy has not been reported, limiting assessment of the risk:benefit ratio and therapeutic decision making. Purpose This meta-analysis reports the comparative safety and efficacy of anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in ESUS patients. Methods A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases was conducted from inception to August 19, 2024. Eligible randomised trials reported recurrent stroke, cerebral emboli, and safety outcomes, including bleeding events. The meta-analysis used a random-effects model to estimate pooled risk ratios (RR) with heterogeneity assessed via I² values. The efficacy outcome was recurrent stroke, systemic thromboembolism or myocardial infarction, whilst the safety outcome was haemorrhagic stroke, major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Direct communication with study teams was used to clarify outcome events where these were not reported in primary publications. Results Of 365 records screened, four trials (RE-SPECT ESUS, NAVIGATE ESUS, ATTICUS, and ARCADIA) with a total of 13,970 patients were included.(2-5) Recurrent stroke occurred in 841 patients (6%), with similar rates in the anticoagulation (5.7%) and antiplatelet (6.2%) groups (RR 0.96, CI 0.81–1.11, p=0.581, I2=21.6%). No significant reduction was observed in the composite efficacy outcome (RR 0.94, CI 0.82-1.07, p=0.335, I2=4.95%)(Figure 1). However, the composite safety outcome was significantly greater amongst patients receiving anticoagulation (RR 1.58, CI 1.20–2.07, p=0.009, I2=48.81%)(Figure 2). Clinically relevant non-major bleeding was higher in the anticoagulation group (3.0% vs. 1.9%, RR 1.56, CI 1.25–1.95, p<0.001). Conclusion(s) This meta-analysis found no significant benefit of anticoagulation over antiplatelet therapy in reducing recurrent stroke or the composite outcome of ischemic stroke, systemic thromboembolism, and myocardial infarction in ESUS patients. Anticoagulation was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, particularly clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and a significantly greater relative risk of the composite safety outcome of major bleeding, haemorrhagic stroke, and non-major bleeding. These findings highlight the need for improved patient selection to identify those ESUS patients who might benefit from anticoagulation, allowing for safer and more tailored secondary prevention strategies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".