Background and Purpose: Preventive antiplatelet therapy is recommended for patients with cardiac or cerebrovascular atherosclerosis. Ticagrelor has an improved safety and efficacy profile in patients with acute coronary syndrome; however, data regarding stroke prevention remain controversial. We conducted a network meta-analysis to compare ticagrelor with other receptor antagonists (P2Y12) inhibitors and aspirin in monotherapy or combination in the treatment of patients with high risk for cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, defined as coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndrome, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or peripheral artery disease. Methods: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were conducted until August 1, 2020. Search terms included ticagrelor, AZD 6140, and stroke. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration assessment tool. Random-effects model was used to combine risk estimates across trials and risk ratio with 95% CIs served as summary statistics. The influence of individual components was evaluated in an additive network meta-analysis model. The primary efficacy end point was the occurrence of stroke. The safety end points included bleeding and all-cause mortality. Results: Twenty-six randomized clinical trials comprising 124 495 patients were analyzed. When compared with controls, ticagrelor plus aspirin significantly reduced the risk of ischemic stroke by 20% (risk ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.71–0.89]). Treatment with ticagrelor monotherapy did not significantly affect ischemic stroke (risk ratio, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77–1.00]; P =0.05). Compared with aspirin alone, major bleeding was in similar ranges with antiplatelet monotherapies while the relative risk was twice higher with combined antiplatelet therapies. There was no considerable difference in the risk of mortality with ticagrelor plus aspirin (risk ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.91–1.07]). Conclusions: Ticagrelor on top of aspirin may provide more favorable outcomes on secondary stroke prevention in patients with vascular risk factors; however, this benefit may come with the price of increased bleeding risk including intracranial bleeding.

Stroke embodies one of the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. We aimed to provide a comprehensive insight into the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. A systematic search for randomized controlled trials, comparing antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy versus aspirin or placebo among patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, was performed in order to summarize data regarding the different regimens. Keyword-based searches in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted until the 1st of January 2021. Our search explored 46 randomized controlled trials involving ten antiplatelet agents, six combinations with aspirin, and four anticoagulant therapies. The review of the literature reflects that antiplatelet therapy improves outcome in patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack. Monotherapy proved to be an effective and safe choice, especially in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Intensified antiplatelet regimens further improve stroke recurrence; however, bleeding rate increases while mortality remains unaffected. Supplementing the clinical judgment of stroke treatment, assessment of bleeding risk is warranted to identify patients with the highest benefit of treatment intensification.

Introduction Anticoagulation reduces the risk of stroke and embolization and is recommended in most patients with atrial fibrillation. Patients after coronary intervention and acute coronary syndromes require antiplatelet treatment. Although oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy may interfere with the outcome of patients after coronary intervention, its exact impact remains unclear. Importantly, risk‐benefit relations may be considerably different after myocardial infarction. Material and methods Data of patients registered from the Hungarian Myocardial Infarction Registry, a mandatory nationwide program for hospitals treating patients with myocardial infarction were processed. Patients registered between 01.2014. and 12.2017 were included. All‐cause mortality, the composite of cardiac events (MACE), and transfusion were compared between patients receiving OAC treatment and a propensity score (PS) matched control group. Subgroup analyses of different anticoagulation and antiplatelet strategies were performed with propensity weighted Cox proportional hazards' models to estimate risk during the first year after the index event. Results From 30 681 patients 1 875 cases received OAC treatment and had apparently worse prognosis. After PS‐matching, however, we found no difference regarding mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.91 95% CI 0.77‐1.09, p=0.303), MACE (HR: 0.92 95% CI 0.78‐1.09, p=0.335) or transfusion (HR: 1.21, 95% CI 0.97‐1.49, p=0.086). In PS‐adjusted analyses for the OAC group, patients who received aspirin was associated with lower mortality (HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.60‐0.997, p=0.048) and MACE (HR:0.73, 95% CI 0.58‐0.92, p=0.008) compared to those without aspirin. Conclusions In patients with acute myocardial infarction, the prognosis of OAC‐treated patients was comparable to the PS matched control, however, the omission of aspirin therapy was associated with unfavorable outcomes.

Background: Clinical evidence has been controversial regarding the influence of low platelet reactivity (LPR), ischemic and bleeding outcomes among patients receiving coronary stent implantation. Hence, the present study performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the significance of LPR on adverse cardiovascular events. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to November 2020 for relevant studies including patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. LPR was the exposed arm while the non-LPR group represented the control. The primary outcome of interest was bleeding risk including major and minor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, repeated revascularization, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Study-level outcomes were evaluated in random-effect models. Results: A total of 20 studies with 19,064 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that LPR was associated with an increased bleeding risk (relative risk [RR] 2.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95–4.02, p < 0.01). Patients with LPR had a lower risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38–0.91, p < 0.05) and of serious vascular events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.84, p < 0.01). Conclusions: LPR is associated with an increased bleeding risk of patients who underwent coronary stent implantation. The results suggest possible benefits of this marker in risk stratification, with potential improvement in risk prediction. There are potential advantages using combinations with other factors in prediction models, however, they require further study. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019136393). Background: Clinical evidence has been controversial regarding the influence of low platelet reactivity (LPR), ischemic and bleeding outcomes among patients receiving coronary stent implantation. Hence, the present study performed a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the significance of LPR on adverse cardiovascular events. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to November 2020 for relevant studies including patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. LPR was the exposed arm while the non-LPR group represented the control. The primary outcome of interest was bleeding risk including major and minor bleeding events. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, repeated revascularization, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. Study-level outcomes were evaluated in random-effect models. Results: A total of 20 studies with 19,064 patients were included. Pooled analysis showed that LPR was associated with an increased bleeding risk (relative risk [RR] 2.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.95–4.02, p < 0.01). Patients with LPR had a lower risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38–0.91, p < 0.05) and of serious vascular events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30–0.84, p < 0.01). Conclusions: LPR is associated with an increased bleeding risk of patients who underwent coronary stent implantation. The results suggest possible benefits of this marker in risk stratification, with potential improvement in risk prediction. There are potential advantages using combinations with other factors in prediction models, however, they require further study. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019136393).