(Stroke. 2000;31:1240.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Indications for Early Aspirin Use in Acute Ischemic Stroke
A Combined Analysis of 40 000 Randomized Patients From the Chinese Acute Stroke Trial and the International Stroke Trial
From the Clinical Trial Service Unit and Epidemiological Studies Unit (Z.M.C., H.C.P., R.C., R.P.), Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, UK; Department of Clinical Neurosciences (P.S., C.C., C.W.), Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK; and Hypertension Unit (L.S.L., J.X.X.), Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, People’s Republic of China.
Correspondence to Dr Z.M. Chen, CTSU, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE, UK. E-mail zhengming.chen{at}ctsu.ox.ac.uk
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—Long-term daily aspirin is of benefit in the years after ischemic stroke, and 2 large randomized trials (the Chinese Acute Stroke Trial [CAST] and the International Stroke Trial [IST]), with 20 000 patients in each, have shown that starting daily aspirin promptly in patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke also reduces the immediate risk of further stroke or death in hospital and the overall risk of death or dependency. However, some uncertainty remains about the effects of early aspirin in particular categories of patient with acute stroke.
Methods—To assess the balance of benefits and risks of aspirin in particular categories of patient with acute stroke (eg, the elderly, those without a CT scan, or those with atrial fibrillation), a prospectively planned meta-analysis is presented of the data from 40 000 individual patients from both trials on events that occurred in the hospital during the scheduled treatment period (4 weeks in CAST, 2 weeks in IST), with 10 characteristics used to define 28 subgroups. This represents 99% of the worldwide evidence from randomized trials.
Results—There was a highly significant reduction of 7 per 1000
(SD 1) in recurrent ischemic stroke (320 [1.6%] aspirin
versus 457 [2.3%] control, 2P<0.000001) and a less
clearly significant reduction of 4 (SD 2) per 1000 in death without
further stroke (5.0% versus 5.4%, 2P=0.05). Against
these benefits, there was an increase of 2 (SD 1) per 1000 in
hemorrhagic stroke or hemorrhagic transformation of the original
infarct (1.0% versus 0.8%, 2P=0.07) and no apparent
effect on further stroke of unknown cause (0.9% versus 0.9%). In
total, therefore, there was a net decrease of 9 (SD 3) per 1000 in the
overall risk of further stroke or death in hospital (8.2% versus
9.1%, 2P=0.001). For the reduction of one third in
recurrent ischemic stroke, subgroup-specific analyses
found no significant heterogeneity of the proportional
benefit of aspirin (
218=20.9, NS), even
though the overall treatment effect
(21=24.8, 2P<0.000001) was
sufficiently large for such subgroup analyses to be
statistically informative. The absolute risk among control patients was
similar in all 28 subgroups, so the absolute reduction of 
7 per 1000
in recurrent ischemic stroke does not differ substantially with
respect to age, sex, level of consciousness, atrial fibrillation, CT
findings, blood pressure, stroke subtype, or concomitant heparin use.
There was no good evidence that the apparent decrease of 4 per 1000
in death without further stroke was reversed in any subgroup or that in
any subgroup the increase in hemorrhagic stroke was much larger than
the overall average of 2 per 1000. Finally, there was no significant
heterogeneity between the reductions in the composite
outcome of any further stroke or death
(218=16.5, NS). Among the 9000 patients
(22%) randomized without a prior CT scan, aspirin appeared to be of
net benefit with no unusual excess of hemorrhagic stroke; moreover,
even among the 800 (2%) who had inadvertently been
randomized after a hemorrhagic stroke, there was no evidence of net
hazard (further stroke or death, 63 aspirin versus 67 control).
Conclusions—Early aspirin is of benefit for a wide range of patients, and its prompt use should be routinely considered for all patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke, mainly to reduce the risk of early recurrence.
Key Words: aspirin • stroke, acute • stroke, ischemic • randomized controlled trials
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Long-term daily aspirin is of benefit in the prevention of serious vascular events in survivors of ischemic stroke, reducing the recurrence rate and improving survival.1 In addition, the Chinese Acute Stroke Trial (CAST)2 and the International Stroke Trial (IST)3 recently demonstrated that starting daily aspirin as soon as is practicable after the onset of suspected acute ischemic stroke moderately reduces the risk of recurrent stroke or death in hospital and improves functional recovery. This suggests that for maximal benefit, aspirin should generally be started promptly after the onset of suspected ischemic stroke and continued indefinitely. There remains uncertainty, however, about the benefits of early aspirin in certain categories of patient with acute ischemic stroke (including the elderly, those with atrial fibrillation,4 5 6 and those presenting after a prolonged delay from symptom onset),7 as well as concerns about cerebral and other hemorrhage (particularly among the elderly, those with high blood pressure, those who have not had a CT scan to exclude preexisting cerebral hemorrhage, and those being treated with anticoagulants).7 8 9 To help address these issues, a combined analysis of individual patient data from CAST and IST had been planned prospectively before any results were available from either study. Each trial involved
20 000
patients, and together they represent 99% of the worldwide
evidence from randomized trials of early aspirin use in acute
ischemic stroke.10 11 Both studies assessed the
same clinical outcomes, and the main purpose of combining their results
was to obtain from analyses of all 40 000 patients highly
reliable estimates of the effects of immediate aspirin on particular
outcomes, such as recurrent ischemic stroke. Both studies also,
however, recorded the same patient characteristics (using similar
entry forms), and a subsidiary preplanned purpose of the
meta-analysis was to determine whether these particular
characteristics significantly modified the clinical effects of
aspirin. |
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Trial Features
The designs of the 2 trials were similar (Table 1
). A major eligibility criterion was the
time from symptom onset, with both trials including only patients who
were still within the first 48 hours (mean 24 hours) from symptom
onset (or from sleep onset, if the stroke occurred while sleeping). A
CT scan before randomization was mandatory only for those who were
comatose at admission: the proportion of all patients scanned before
randomization was, however, high (see later). In both trials, half of
the patients were randomly allocated to receive medium-dose aspirin
(160 mg/d for 4 weeks in CAST, 300 mg/d for 2 weeks in IST). In CAST,
the control group were given inactive placebo tablets, but in IST, they
were not, so IST was an "open" trial. For each patient who had not
yet been irreversibly entered, however, proper concealment of the next
random treatment allocation would be complete in both trials. In IST,
half of the aspirin-allocated patients were also allocated subcutaneous
heparin, as were half of the control patients, but this "factorial"
design does not bias the present comparisons of all of those who
were allocated aspirin versus all of those who were not.
|
Individual Patient Data Collection
Information for each patient was obtained from both trials on
several characteristics: hours since symptom onset, age, sex, level of
consciousness (either alert or drowsy/comatose), presence of atrial
fibrillation (yes/no), CT scan findings (infarct visible/not
visible/not performed), systolic blood pressure, stroke
syndrome (lacunar/other), and, in IST, whether the allocated treatment
included heparin (yes/no). In addition, patients were subdivided into 3
similar-sized "prognostic categories" with respect to their risk of
further (symptomatic) stroke or death in hospital, as
estimated from a logistic model based on the data recorded at
randomization for all patients (regardless of allocated
treatment).3
Analyses are presented of recurrent ischemic stroke, of hemorrhagic stroke (including both hemorrhagic stroke and hemorrhagic transformation of the original infarct), of further stroke of unknown cause, of death without further stroke, of further stroke or death (ie, any of the above outcomes), and of any noncerebral hemorrhage that required transfusion or caused death. All analyses are based on allocated treatment and are of the numbers of patients with the relevant outcome at least once in the hospital (before first discharge) during the scheduled treatment period (days 0 to 28 in CAST, days 0 to 14 in IST).
Data from each trial were checked for internal consistency, with any apparent inconsistencies investigated and, if possible, corrected by the principal investigators. This process yielded only very minor discrepancies between the numbers reported here and those in the previous reports of these studies.2 3
Statistical Analysis
The overall comparison of aspirin versus control in each
particular subgroup is obtained by adding together the corresponding
subgroup-specific results from CAST and from IST with use of the
standard Mantel-Haenszel methods for meta-analyses of different
trials.1 12 These methods avoid any direct comparisons
between patients in different trials or subgroups and involve no
unjustifiable assumptions about similarities between the effects of
aspirin in different trials. For a particular subgroup (eg, men) in a
particular trial, the observed number of events among the
aspirin-allocated patients is compared with the number expected from
the combined experience among the aspirin-allocated and
control-allocated patients in that subgroup. This is repeated for this
same subgroup in the other trial, and these 2
"observed-minus-expected" (O-E) numbers of events, 1 from each
trial, are then added together, as are their 2 variances, to yield a
total (O-E) and its variance (V). From these 2 totals, ORs are
calculated (using the standard formula exp[(O-E)/V] for the
OR.1 12 An OR of 0.70 would correspond to a 30% odds
reduction among those allocated aspirin. The 2
tests are calculated in the usual way1 12 for
heterogeneity between the odds reductions in subgroups
with different characteristics (eg, age, sex, blood pressure, and so
on). The summation of such 2 tests yields a
global 2 test of heterogeneity
on a number of df equal to the total number of subgroups
minus the number of individual 2 tests (eg, 10
characteristics divided into 28 subgroups yields a global
heterogeneity test on 28 minus 10 df).
Because the individual tests for different characteristics may not be
mutually independent, this global test is conservative; that is, it
yields only a lower limit on the P value, with NS (not
significant) indicating that the lower limit exceeds 0.1.
Even when there is clear overall evidence of benefit in an overview that involves several tens of thousands of patients, it can still be surprisingly difficult to reliably determine whether a treatment is either especially advantageous or relatively ineffective (or even dangerous) in some small subcategory of patients. Now that aspirin has been demonstrated to produces a significant overall reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke,2 3 the statistically appropriate question for any particular category of patient is, in general, not whether the proportional risk reduction produced by aspirin in that category differs significantly from zero but instead whether (after due allowance for the fact that many categories have been analyzed) there is good evidence that the proven ability of aspirin to prevent ischemic stroke is absent in any particular category of patient with suspected acute ischemic stroke. Simple statistical formulas can help, but do not suffice, to answer such questions.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Prerandomization Characteristics and Event Rates in the Hospital
In both trials, a wide range of patients with suspected ischemic stroke were randomized, with those in CAST tending to be younger and less likely to have impaired consciousness or atrial fibrillation than those in IST and hence having a somewhat better prognosis (Table 2
). Overall, the mean
time from symptom onset to randomization was 24 hours, but 5600
patients (14%) were randomized within the first 6 hours (and trial
treatment began immediately after randomization). The mean age was 67
years (63 in CAST, 71 in IST), but 11 000 (28%) were aged 
75 years.
At randomization, 18% were drowsy or comatose, 12% had atrial
fibrillation, and 15% had a systolic blood pressure of
190 mm Hg.
|
A CT scan was performed before randomization in 88% of those in CAST and 67% of those in IST; indeed, in CAST, eligibility was often decided only after a scan. Hence, of the prerandomization scans, 85% in CAST and 49% in IST already showed an infarct. Many patients were also scanned (or rescanned) after randomization: 97% in CAST and 96% in IST of those randomized were scanned either before entry or at some time during the scheduled treatment period. At the end of this, only 3% of all patients still did not have the type of the initial stroke determined reliably: 94% had had the initial diagnosis of ischemic stroke confirmed, 2% had been found retrospectively to have had a hemorrhagic stroke at randomization (and so trial treatment, but not trial follow-up, was stopped), and 2% had been found not to have had a stroke at all. All randomized patients were included in these analyses regardless of their compliance with study treatment and of their original or final diagnosis.
After randomization, the risk of having another stroke in the hospital
was similar in the 2 trials (Table 2
: 2% had a recurrent
ischemic stroke, 1% had a hemorrhagic stroke, and 1% had
another stroke of unknown cause), even though the follow-up duration
was twice as long in CAST, because most of the recurrent strokes
occurred in the first 7 days. The risk of death without further stroke
was, however, only one third as high in CAST (2.6%) as in IST (8.0%),
perhaps in part because the patients entering CAST tended to be younger
and to have had smaller strokes.
Main Outcomes in All Patients
Overall, allocation to early aspirin produced a very definite and
substantial reduction of 7 (SD 1) per 1000 in the risk of having a
fatal or nonfatal recurrent ischemic stroke in the hospital
(Figure 1: 320 [1.6%] aspirin versus
457 [2.3%] control, 2P<0.000001). Against this, there
was a smaller increase of 2 (SD 1) per 1000 in the risk of having a
hemorrhagic stroke or hemorrhagic transformation of the original
infarct (202 [1.0%] aspirin versus 167 [0.8%] control,
2P=0.07). There appeared to be no net difference in the
overall risk of having another stroke of unknown cause, of which some
would have been ischemic and some would have been hemorrhagic
(178 [0.9%] aspirin versus 186 [0.9%] control). Finally, aspirin
appeared to produce a reduction of 4 (SD 2) in death without further
stroke, but this benefit is only just conventionally significant (1004
[5.0%] aspirin versus 1090 [5.4%] control, 2P=0.05).
Most of such deaths would have been due to the direct or indirect
effects of the original stroke (but without good evidence of
hemorrhagic transformation of it). A combination of these 4 outcomes
(which hardly overlap) yields an overall risk reduction of 9 (SD 3) per
1000 for the composite outcome of any further stroke or death (1641
[8.2%] aspirin versus 1823 [9.1%] control, 2P=0.001).
For the composite outcome of death or dependency, the absolute benefit
was slightly greater: 12 (SD 5) per 1000 (9153 [45.6%] aspirin
versus 9391 [46.9%] control, 2P=0.01). The assessment in
Figure 1 of the net benefit of aspirin in hospital involves only
the reduction of 9 per 1000 in further stroke or death, ignoring the
increases or decreases of 1 or 2 per 1000 in nonfatal transfused
bleeds, nonfatal pulmonary emboli, and nonfatal myocardial
infarcts. Any pulmonary emboli that were followed by death in
hospital (39 aspirin versus 56 control) are already included in these
deaths, but both these and other pulmonary emboli (30 aspirin
versus 41 control) may have been substantially underreported. No
systematic information was collected on nonfatal myocardial infarction
(which, although already uncommon, might well be made slightly less
common with aspirin).
|
Recurrent Ischemic Stroke in Various Subgroups
For recurrent ischemic stroke, the absolute risk reduction
of 7 per 1000 (1.6% versus 2.3%) corresponds to a proportional
reduction of 30% (OR 0.70). This overall result is indicated by the
broken vertical line in Figure 2, along with the separate results for each of 28 different subgroups of
10 characteristics recorded at baseline. Overall, the amount of
heterogeneity between these 28 results is no greater
than would be expected by chance alone if the proportional risk
reduction was really about the same in all subgroups (global
heterogeneity test on 18 df, 20.9, NS).
Thus, for recurrent ischemic stroke, there is no good evidence
that the proportional reduction is much larger or smaller in any
subgroup than in the aggregate of all patients. In particular, the
result for patients randomized 7 to 12 hours after stroke onset merely
illustrates the statistical problems of subgroup analyses and
does not indicate that aspirin is much less effective for such patients
than for those randomized 0 to 6 or 13 to 48 hours after stroke onset.
Likewise, the apparent difference between the effects in men and women
is not conventionally significant, as long as due allowance is made for
the number of different comparisons that have been made in Figure 2.
|
, with area
proportional to the total number of patients with an event) are given.
A square to the left of the solid vertical line suggests benefit,
significant at 2P<0.01 only if the entire 99% CI
(horizontal line) is to the left of the solid vertical line. 
indicates overall result and its 95% CI. Summation of the 10 separate
]) yields the
global test for heterogeneity between the 28 subgroups:
Atrial Fibrillation
The absolute risk of recurrent ischemic stroke was similar
for control patients with and without atrial fibrillation, so if the
proportional risk reductions produced by aspirin are similar (as
suggested in Figure 2), then atrial fibrillation will be of
little relevance to the absolute reduction in recurrent
ischemic stroke with early aspirin.
Heparin
Early aspirin yielded a highly significant reduction in
recurrent ischemic stroke both when subcutaneous heparin was
given as part of the IST trial (1.3% aspirin plus heparin versus 2.2%
heparin alone, 2P=0.0004) and when it was not given (1.7%
aspirin alone versus 2.3% nil, 2P=0.0002; Figure 2).
Thus, early aspirin is of substantial value for the prevention of
recurrent ischemic stroke, regardless of the use of heparin.
Moreover, Figure 5 of the original IST report3 showed
that aspirin reduced recurrent ischemic stroke to a similar
extent in those allocated medium-dose heparin and in those allocated
low-dose heparin, with little effect in either case on intracranial
hemorrhage.
Prognostic Index
The 10th characteristic in Figure 2 is an overall
prognostic index, which combines information from several of the other
characteristics to produce 3 equal-sized groups, good, average, and
poor prognoses, that differ as much as possible in their overall risk
of further stroke or death in hospital2 3 (see later).
However, they do not differ substantially with respect to their
absolute risk of recurrent ischemic stroke or with respect to
the proportional reductions in this outcome that are produced by
aspirin (Figure 2). Hence, early aspirin appears to produce
about the same absolute reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke
in all 3 of these prognostic categories.
Definite Benefit in All Subgroups
Because recurrent ischemic stroke is not a composite
outcome, because the absolute risk is fairly similar for all of these
28 subgroups, and because the 2 for overall
risk reduction is large enough
(21=24.8) to be informative
when shared between a few subgroups, the lack of significant
heterogeneity between the proportional risk reductions
in Figure 2 provides strong evidence that aspirin will produce
fairly similar proportional and absolute reductions in recurrent
ischemic stroke for all of these patient categories. Hence, in
each category, aspirin produces an absolute reduction of several per
1000 in the risk of recurrent ischemic stroke.
Further Stroke of Unknown Type
Overall, there was no apparent effect of aspirin allocation on the
subsequent incidence of strokes of unknown type, either overall (Figure 1) or in any particular subgroup (global
heterogeneity test:
218=17.3; NS).
Hemorrhagic Stroke (Table 3)
Given the definiteness and size of the reduction in recurrent
ischemic stroke produced by early aspirin, the lack of apparent
reduction in further strokes of unknown etiology (Figure 1)
reinforces the evidence from this and other sources1 that
there also is some real adverse effect of such treatment, even though
the increase of 2 (SD 1) per 1000 in clinically diagnosed hemorrhagic
stroke (or transformation) was not conventionally significant
(2P=0.07). The left part of Table 3 provides the
results for hemorrhagic stroke (or hemorrhagic transformation of the
original infarct) in the 28 subgroups considered previously. However,
because the overall result is not clearly significant, these
subgroup-specific analyses are insensitive, so a
subgroup-specific hazard would have to be very large to be reliably
demonstrably greater than the average hazard. For only 3 of the 28
subgroups in Table 3 is the apparent excess of hemorrhagic
stroke >3 per 1000, but none of these excesses are clearly
significantly greater than the average (after allowance for the number
of subgroups considered), and no particularly large hazard would be
expected for any of these 3 subgroups (those randomized 7 to 12 hours
after stroke onset, those aged <65 years, and those with low blood
pressure). Moreover, aspirin appears to produce no special excess risk
of hemorrhagic stroke in those with a more severe stroke at entry (ie,
those with "poor prognosis").
|
Hence, in all such subgroups, it is appropriate to conclude that the absolute increase in hemorrhagic stroke or transformation is no more than a few (overall 2 SD 1) per 1000. This hazard can reliably be taken to be smaller than the absolute decrease of several (overall 7 SD 1) per 1000 in recurrent ischemic stroke that is produced by early aspirin use.
Major Noncerebral Hemorrhage
The right part of Table 3 gives the
number of patients who received a blood transfusion or died because of
bleeding from a noncerebral site. Overall, aspirin was associated with
a definite (2P=0.00001) excess of such bleeds. The absolute
excess produced by aspirin was larger among patients allocated heparin
in half of IST (1.8% allocated aspirin plus heparin versus 0.9%
heparin alone; excess 9 SD 2 per 1000, 2P=0.0001) than among
other patients (0.7% allocated aspirin alone versus 0.5% nil; excess
2 SD 1 per 1000, 2P=0.01, and because some of these received
nontrial anticoagulants, the excess with aspirin on its own may have
been still less). These excesses chiefly involved nonfatal bleeds in
patients who were subsequently discharged alive (1.42% aspirin plus
heparin versus 0.68% heparin alone, excess 7 per 1000; 0.43% aspirin
versus 0.26% nil, excess 2 per 1000).
Patients Inadvertently Randomized After a
Hemorrhagic Stroke
Seven hundred seventy-three patients (2%) were subsequently found
to have been randomized, inadvertently, after an
intracerebral hemorrhage rather than an
ischemic stroke. Among them, the overall risk of further stroke
or death was high (17%), but there was no good evidence of an adverse
effect of aspirin, rather the reverse, if anything (Table 4). Aspirin had no significant effect on
the incidence of another symptomatic cerebral
hemorrhage (29 [7.3%] versus 26 [6.9%], NS) and appeared
to reduce the incidence of other strokes (1 [0.3%] versus 8
[1.1%], 2P=0.04).
|
Death Without Further Stroke
Taking all patients together, aspirin was associated with a
proportional reduction of 8% (SD 4) in deaths without any further
stroke (1004 [5.0%] aspirin versus 1090 [5.4%] control,
2P=0.05). Figure 3 shows this
overall treatment effect (vertical broken line), together with the
results observed in the 28 subgroups. Because the overall effect of
treatment on this outcome is not highly significant, the
subgroup-specific treatment effects are not statistically reliable, but
at least none provide good evidence of hazard. This, together with the
apparently favorable overall effect of treatment on these deaths,
provides a margin of safety for the earlier evidence, based on the
favorable balance between recurrent ischemic stroke and
hemorrhagic stroke, that aspirin is of net value in all subgroups.
|
Deaths without further stroke were mainly due to the direct or indirect effects of the original stroke (which might not be much affected by aspirin), and many of the characteristics recorded at entry were strongly predictive of the absolute risk. Overall, the risk of such deaths in poor-prognosis patients was >10 times that in good-prognosis patients. If the relative risk (aspirin versus control) were constant, then this wide variation in absolute risk would imply wide variation in absolute benefit, but the subgroup-specific analyses of the effects of aspirin are not sufficiently stable to determine whether the absolute benefits really do vary widely. For example, the 8% proportional risk reduction in poor-prognosis patients corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of 9 per 1000, whereas the 8% proportional risk reduction in good- or average-prognosis patients corresponds to an absolute risk reduction of only 2 per 1000, but these absolute benefits are not significantly different from each other.
Further Stroke or Death
Taking all patients together, aspirin was associated with a highly
significant proportional reduction of 11% (SD 3) in further stroke or
death in hospital (1641 [8.2%] aspirin versus 1823 [9.1%]
control, 2P=0.001). Figure 4
shows this overall treatment effect (broken vertical line), together
with the results observed in the 28 subgroups. There was no significant
heterogeneity between the 28 proportional risk
reductions (218=16.5, NS),
and the erratic result for patients entered 7 to 12 hours after stroke
onset can plausibly be dismissed as a chance finding (as discussed
earlier). Because the overall result for further stroke or death
involves a much smaller 2 than that for
recurrent ischemic stroke
(21=10.8 instead of 24.8) and
because further stroke or death is a composite outcome, involving both
benefit and hazard, the subgroup analyses in Figure 4
are less reliable than those in Figure 2. They are, however,
readily compatible with the earlier conclusions from the separate
analyses of recurrent ischemic stroke and of
hemorrhagic stroke that early aspirin is of net benefit in all of these
subgroups (including patients with impaired consciousness, those with
atrial fibrillation or hypertension, those without a prior CT scan, and
those allocated heparin). There is an apparent tendency for the
absolute benefit to be bigger for poor- than for good-prognosis
patients, but this is not statistically significant.
|
Days From Randomization to Outcome
The findings during days 0 to 1, days 2 to 7, and later after
randomization are given separately at the foot of each set of subgroup
results (Figures 2 to 4, open squares, and Table 3). For none of the analyzed outcomes was there
significant heterogeneity between the proportional
effects in these 3 time periods, so although the benefit appears
chiefly to be seen after days 0 to 1, there might in fact be some net
benefit during days 0 to 1 (and treatment during days 0 to 1 may have
been a cause of some of the subsequent benefit).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The overall results (and subgroup analyses) published for CAST2 and for IST3 were consistent with each other in suggesting a net benefit for a wide range of patients, and the combined analyses of both trials further support this. Despite differences in the types of patient randomized, both studies indicated a substantial proportional reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke. Together, they show that if aspirin is started early in suspected acute ischemic stroke and continued for the next few weeks, it produces a definite reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke, and hence in the combined outcome of further stroke or death, and that it is of net benefit for a wide range of patients. If, as may well be the case, the absolute benefit is generally somewhat greater for those at a greater absolute risk, then the benefit with the widespread use of early aspirin therapy may well be somewhat greater than that suggested by these trials. For although a wide range of patients were included in both trials, the overall risk of further stroke or death may have been somewhat lower than that in routine practice.
The proportional reduction in recurrent ischemic stroke was not
significantly affected by any of the factors examined (eg, age, sex,
blood pressure, stroke syndrome, presence of atrial fibrillation, or
whether a CT scan had been performed before randomization), as long as
appropriate allowance is made for the number of characteristics
analyzed. Older patients and hypertensive patients were not at
particular risk of recurrent ischemic stroke or, perhaps
surprisingly,13 of hemorrhagic stroke, so the absolute net
benefits of early aspirin appear to be about as great for them as for
other types of patients. Indeed, the absolute risk of recurrent
ischemic stroke was not very strongly related to any of the
prognostic factors that were recorded, and the same is likely to be
true for the reduction with aspirin in this risk. In particular, the
apparent difference in benefit between men and women in Figure 2
is not good evidence of any real difference in benefit, especially
because 1 month of aspirin therapy in acute myocardial infarction is of
substantial and similar value for men and women,14 as is
long-term antiplatelet therapy.1 It is therefore
concluded that for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke,
starting daily aspirin early and continuing for the long term are of
definite benefit for both sexes.
When to Start Aspirin
An overemphasis on the urgency of other treatments for
ischemic stroke (eg, fibrinolytic therapy)15 may
lead to an underemphasis on the importance of prompt aspirin
use.16 17 The patients in these 2 trials were all
randomized within 48 hours of the onset of symptoms, with definite
benefit for those entered either 0 to 24 or 25 to 48 hours from the
onset. The second of the results does not, however, provide any good
reason to delay the start of aspirin promptly in patients who
present early (particularly because the incidence of hemorrhagic
stroke or transformation was low during days 0 to 1, whereas that of
recurrent ischemic stroke was relatively high), but it does
mean that even patients who present somewhat later can still
benefit from prompt treatment. Indeed, given that aspirin has been
shown to be effective in the long-term secondary prevention of stroke
after hospital discharge,1 the prompt initiation of
aspirin would also be of net benefit even for patients who present
>48 hours after the onset of their symptoms. This conclusion is in
accord with that of a recent review17 of antiplatelet
therapy in acute cerebral ischemia (which, however, mistakenly
suggested that CAST and IST did not enter patients within the first 6
hours).
The reduction in further stroke or death from just a few weeks of early
aspirin use is 9 per 1000 within 1 month, which compares favorably with
the absolute monthly benefits of antiplatelet therapy in nonacute
settings. For example, in the trials of antiplatelet treatment
given on a long-term basis (eg, for some years) to patients who have
already had a stroke or an episode of transient cerebral
ischemia, the average monthly benefit was only 1 per 1000, even
though the cumulative benefit eventually became substantial (38 per
1000 after 3 years of antiplatelet treatment).1
Atrial Fibrillation
Patients admitted with suspected ischemic stroke and
atrial fibrillation in CAST and IST had, in comparison with patients
without this arrhythmia, 3 times the risk of death without
further stroke (Figure 3: most such deaths were due to the
original stroke), being older and more likely to have impaired
consciousness or a large infarct. Perhaps surprisingly, their risk of
recurrent ischemic stroke was not particularly elevated (Figure 2). Hence, the ability of aspirin to prevent recurrent
ischemic stroke appears to be about as great for those with as
for those without atrial fibrillation. Given that early aspirin is of
net benefit, patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial
fibrillation could at least be treated safely with aspirin for the
first few weeks, regardless of whatever else is administered and
regardless of the anticoagulant (or other) treatment that they will
eventually receive for long-term secondary prevention.18
In deciding whether some form of early anticoagulation should be
administered in addition to early aspirin to acute stroke patients with
atrial fibrillation, it should be borne in mind that their risk of
recurrent ischemic stroke is not particularly high and that the
increase in hemorrhagic stroke (and in transfused bleeds) is strongly
related to the dose of heparin.3
Treatment If CT Scanning Is Unavailable
About 10% to 15% of the acute strokes treated in countries
such as Britain are hemorrhagic,19 whereas the
corresponding proportion in China appears to be about twice
this.20 Early aspirin use in both CAST and IST was
associated with only a small increase in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke
or hemorrhagic transformation. In the present overview, 9000
(22%) of the patients were randomized without a prior CT scan, and
among them, the net benefits of aspirin appeared to be about the same
as for those who had had a CT scan before randomization. Furthermore,
in 800 patients whose presenting event was subsequently
discovered to have been a hemorrhagic stroke, there was no evidence of
any particular adverse effect of aspirin (Table 4), so any net
hazard of early aspirin use in patients with a misdiagnosed hemorrhagic
stroke is not substantial. Even so, because it would be preferable to
limit the number of such patients who are inadvertently
given antiplatelet therapy, if reasonably rapid CT scanning is
available locally, then it may well be preferable to delay aspirin
until after a CT scan has been performed. However, the results from
CAST and IST give no good reason to withhold early aspirin treatment
when ischemic stroke is suspected and rapid CT scanning is not
conveniently available.
In summary, the present overview of 2 large randomized trials
with 40 000 patients shows that early aspirin is beneficial in a
wide range of patients with suspected acute ischemic stroke,
confirming17 21 that such treatment should routinely be
considered for all patients who present with signs and symptoms of
acute ischemic stroke, provided that no strong
contraindications are apparent and that hemorrhagic stroke can be
excluded with reasonable probability (with or without prior CT
scan).
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
The Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit and the Edinburgh Department of Clinical Neurosciences were supported by Medical Research Council special program grants. IST was also supported by the European Union and the Stroke Association. The principal acknowledgment is to the many patients who joined these 2 trials and to the many CAST and IST collaborators (and others) acknowledged in the original reports.2 3
Received November 23, 1999; revision received February 16, 2000; accepted February 25, 2000.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
-
Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration.
Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet
therapy, I: prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by
prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients.
BMJ. 1994;308:81–106.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - CAST (Chinese Acute Stroke Trial) Collaborative Group. CAST: a randomised placebo-controlled trial of early aspirin use in 20,000 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet. 1997;349:1641–1649.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. The International Stroke Trial (IST): a randomised trial of aspirin, subcutaneous heparin, both, or neither among 19,435 patients with acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet. 1997;349:1569–1581.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Bousser M-G. Aspirin or heparin immediately after a stroke? Lancet. 1997;349:1564–1565.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Lip GYH, Beevers DG. Interpretation of IST and CAST stroke trials. Lancet. 1997;350:442–443. Letter.
- Chen ZM, Collins R, Peto R, Xie JX, Liu LS. Interpretation of IST and CAST stroke trials. Lancet. 1997;350:444. Letter.
- Bradford APJ, Khan SA, Lees KR, McInees GT, Semple PE. Interpretation of IST and CAST stroke trials. Lancet. 1997;350:440–441. Letter.
- Tan LB. Interpretation of IST and CAST stroke trials. Lancet. 1997;350:443. Letter.
- Czlonkowska A, Szpak GM. Interpretation of IST and CAST stroke trials. Lancet. 1997;350:441–442. Letter.
- Counsell C, Sandercock P. The efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute presumed ischaemic stroke: a systematic review of the randomised trials comparing immediate antiplatelet therapy with control. In: Warlow C, Van Gijn J, Sandercock P, eds. Stroke Module, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Oxford, UK: Update Software; 1997 (updated quarterly; database on disk and CD-ROM).
- Multicentre Acute Stroke Trial–Italy (MAST-I) Group. Randomised controlled trial of streptokinase, aspirin, and combination of both in treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Lancet. 1995;346:1509–1514.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: Vol I: Worldwide Evidence 1985–1990. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1990.
-
He J, Whelton PK, Vu B, Klag MJ. Aspirin and risk of
hemorrhagic stroke. JAMA. 1998;280:1930–1935.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. Lancet. 1988;2:349–360.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Hill MD, Hachinski V. Stroke treatment: time is brain. Lancet. 1998;352(suppl III):10–14.
- Baigent C, Chen Z, Collins R, Peto R, Sudlow C. Aspirin for suspected ischaemic stroke. Lancet. 1999;353:151–152. Letter.
-
Bednar MM, Gross CE. Antiplatelet therapy in acute
cerebral ischaemia. Stroke. 1999;30:887–893.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - EAFT (European Atrial Fibrillation Trial) Study Group. Secondary prevention in non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke. Lancet. 1993;342:1255–1262.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
- Oxfordshire Community Stroke Project. The incidence of stroke in Oxfordshire. BMJ. 1983;287:713–717.
-
Li SC, Schoenberg BS, Wang CC, Cheng XM, Bolis CL, Wang
KJ. Cerebrovascular disease in the People’s Republic of China:
epidemiologic and clinical features. Neurology. 1985;35:1708–1713.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] -
Anonymous. Management soon after a stroke. Drug
Ther Bull. 1998;36:51–54.
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  L. B. Goldstein Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment in 2007 Circulation, September 25, 2007; 116(13): 1504 - 1514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. B. van der Worp and J. van Gijn Acute Ischemic Stroke N. Engl. J. Med., August 9, 2007; 357(6): 572 - 579. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 The Optimising Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Co Can We Improve the Statistical Analysis of Stroke Trials?: Statistical Reanalysis of Functional Outcomes in Stroke Trials * OAST Supplemental Appendix I: Statistical Tests Compared (see Table I) * OAST Supplemental Appendix II: Supplementary Analyses * OAST Supplemental Appendix III: Trial Data (see Tables II and III) * OAST Supplemental Appendix IV: Results (see Table IV) Stroke, June 1, 2007; 38(6): 1911 - 1915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Sena, P. Wheble, P. Sandercock, and M. Macleod Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Tirilazad in Experimental Stroke Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 388 - 394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D J H McCabe and R D Rakhit Antithrombotic and interventional treatment options in cardioembolic transient ischaemic attack and ischaemic stroke J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, January 1, 2007; 78(1): 14 - 24. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Hennekens, O. Sechenova, D. Hollar, and V. L. Serebruany Dose of Aspirin in the Treatment and Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: Current and Future Directions. Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, September 1, 2006; 11(3): 170 - 176. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. M. Becker, J. Segal, D. Vaidya, L. R. Yanek, J. E. Herrera-Galeano, P. F. Bray, T. F. Moy, L. C. Becker, and N. Faraday Sex Differences in Platelet Reactivity and Response to Low-Dose Aspirin Therapy JAMA, March 22, 2006; 295(12): 1420 - 1427. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Toyoda, Y. Okada, K. Minematsu, M. Kamouchi, S. Fujimoto, S. Ibayashi, and T. Inoue Antiplatelet therapy contributes to acute deterioration of intracerebral hemorrhage Neurology, October 11, 2005; 65(7): 1000 - 1004. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
California Acute Stroke Pilot Registry (CASPR) Inv The impact of standardized stroke orders on adherence to best practices Neurology, August 9, 2005; 65(3): 360 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Garbusinski, M. A.B. van der Sande, E. J. Bartholome, M. Dramaix, A. Gaye, R. Coleman, O. A. Nyan, R. W. Walker, K. P.W.J. McAdam, and G. E. Walraven Stroke Presentation and Outcome in Developing Countries: A Prospective Study in The Gambia Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1388 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. C Simmonds, J. P T Higginsa, L. A Stewartb, J. F Tierneyb, M. J Clarke, and S. G Thompson Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice Clinical Trials, June 1, 2005; 2(3): 209 - 217. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K Kimura, K Minematsu, T Yamaguchi, and for the Japan Multicenter Stroke Investigators' Co Atrial fibrillation as a predictive factor for severe stroke and early death in 15 831 patients with acute ischaemic stroke J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, May 1, 2005; 76(5): 679 - 683. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Kriszbacher, M. Koppan, J. Bodis, H.-K. Yip, S.-S. Chen, and M.-C. Chen Aspirin for Stroke Prevention Taken in the Evening? * Response: Stroke, December 1, 2004; 35(12): 2760 - 2762. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Wardlaw, J. Seymour, J. Cairns, S. Keir, S. Lewis, and P. Sandercock Immediate Computed Tomography Scanning of Acute Stroke Is Cost-Effective and Improves Quality of Life Stroke, November 1, 2004; 35(11): 2477 - 2483. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. K. Kapral, A. Laupacis, S. J. Phillips, F. L. Silver, M. D. Hill, J. Fang, J. Richards, J. V. Tu, and for the Investigators of the Registry of the Canad Stroke Care Delivery in Institutions Participating in the Registry of the Canadian Stroke Network Stroke, July 1, 2004; 35(7): 1756 - 1762. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H.-K. Yip, S.-S. Chen, J. S. Liu, H.-W. Chang, Y.-F. Kao, M.-Y. Lan, Y.-Y. Chang, S.-L. Lai, W.-H. Chen, and M.-C. Chen Serial Changes in Platelet Activation in Patients After Ischemic Stroke: Role of Pharmacodynamic Modulation Stroke, July 1, 2004; 35(7): 1683 - 1687. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J M Wardlaw and A J Farrall Diagnosis of stroke on neuroimaging BMJ, March 20, 2004; 328(7441): 655 - 656. [Full Text] |