Official reprint from UpToDate® www.uptodate.com
©2012 UpToDate®
The content on the UpToDate website is not intended nor recommended as a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your own physician or other qualified health care professional regarding any medical questions or conditions. The use of this website is governed by the UpToDate Terms of Use (click here) ©2012 UpToDate, Inc.
Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of stroke
All topics are updated as new evidence becomes available and our peer review process is complete.
Literature review current through: Mar 2012. | This topic last updated: Jul 28, 2011.

INTRODUCTION — Antiplatelet therapy is used for both the management of acute ischemic stroke and for the prevention of stroke. Antiplatelet therapy reduces the incidence of stroke in patients at high risk for atherosclerosis and in those with known symptomatic cerebrovascular disease.

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention will be reviewed here. Antiplatelet therapy for acute ischemic stroke and for primary stroke prevention is discussed separately. (See "Antithrombotic treatment of acute ischemic stroke" and "Overview of primary prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke".)

ASPIRIN — Aspirin, the most commonly used antiplatelet agent, inhibits the enzyme cyclooxygenase, reducing production of thromboxane A2, a stimulator of platelet aggregation. This interferes with the formation of thrombi, thereby reducing the risk of stroke. (See "Benefits and risks of aspirin in secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease".)

The effectiveness of aspirin for preventing ischemic stroke and cardiovascular events is supported by a meta-analysis from the Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration (ATC) published in 2002 [1]. The ATC analyzed 195 randomized controlled trials comparing antiplatelet therapy, primarily aspirin, with placebo in the prevention of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death among high-risk patients with some vascular disease or other condition implying an increased risk of occlusive vascular disease. Patients treated with an antiplatelet agent (primarily aspirin) had a 25 percent relative risk reduction in nonfatal stroke compared with placebo.

Among the subset of patients in the 2002 ATC with prior cerebrovascular disease (TIA or stroke), antiplatelet therapy reduced the risk of secondary stroke, MI, or vascular death by 22 percent; the absolute benefit was 36 events prevented per 1000 patients treated for 29 months [1]. The benefit of antiplatelet therapy was independent of sex, age (greater or less than 65), diabetes, or hypertension. Similar results were reported in a 2009 ATC meta-analysis of 16 placebo-controlled secondary prevention trials; aspirin reduced the risk of any serious vascular event by 19 percent and reduced the risk of ischemic stroke by 22 percent [2].

Stopping antiplatelet therapy in high-risk patients may itself increase the risk of stroke. One study found that 13 of 289 patients hospitalized with cerebral infarction had recently stopped antiplatelet therapy; most had been taking aspirin [3]. In all 13, the antiplatelet agent had been discontinued within 6 to 10 days of stroke onset, a time course consistent with the known lifespan (about 10 days) of inhibited platelets. Additionally, a case-control study comparing 309 patients with stroke to 309 matched controls found that discontinuation of aspirin was associated with a significantly increased risk of TIA or ischemic stroke (odds ratio 3.4, 95% CI 1.08-10.63) [4].

In addition to its benefit for secondary stroke prevention, treatment with aspirin decreases the risk of other cardiovascular events in a wide range of patients with established disease. Furthermore, there is considerable evidence that long-term aspirin use reduces the risk of death from certain cancers. (See "Benefits and risks of aspirin in secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease" and "Cancer prevention", section on 'Aspirin and other anti-inflammatory drugs'.)

The issue of nonresponse/resistance to aspirin in cardiovascular disease is discussed separately. (See "Nonresponse and resistance to clopidogrel".)

Studies evaluating aspirin treatment and aspirin doses for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy are reviewed elsewhere. (See "Carotid endarterectomy", section on 'Aspirin'.)

Dose of aspirin — The dose of aspirin in secondary stroke prevention studies ranged between 20 to 1300 mg. Most studies have found that 50 to 325 mg/day of aspirin is as effective as higher doses [1,5-10]. Furthermore, lower doses within this range appear to provide the same benefit as higher doses [1,6,10].

As an example, a review of 195 trials of secondary prevention by the ATC showed that doses of 75 to 150 mg/day produced the same risk reduction, compared with placebo, as doses of 150 to 325 mg/day [1]. In the ATC analysis of trials directly comparing aspirin <75 mg/day to aspirin ≥75 mg/day, there was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two regimens. However, the ATC noted that aspirin doses of <75 mg/day have been less widely assessed than doses of 75 to 150 mg/day, so uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of doses <75 mg/day compared with higher aspirin doses.

Even lower doses may be effective, as demonstrated in the Dutch TIA Trial [11]. This study found similar efficacy for stroke prevention with 30 mg compared with 283 mg of aspirin per day in patients who had had a TIA or minor ischemic stroke. In the European Stroke Prevention Study-2 (ESPS-2), 50 mg of aspirin daily reduced stroke risk by 18 percent compared with placebo (29 strokes prevented per 1000 treated), an effect of comparable magnitude to the other trials cited above [6]. This benefit seen with very low-dose aspirin is consistent with laboratory observations that 30 mg of aspirin per day results in complete suppression of thromboxane A2 production [12].

Given the apparent equivalent benefit of different doses of aspirin for ischemic stroke prevention, and the increased risk of bleeding complications with higher dose aspirin discussed below, we recommend a dose of 50 to 100 mg/day when using aspirin for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. This recommendation is in agreement with current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians [13].

Toxicity and risk of bleeding — Lower doses of aspirin appear to be associated with less gastrointestinal toxicity [5,11,14]. In the UK TIA trial, for example, gastrointestinal hemorrhage occurred in 1.6 percent of patients on placebo, 2.6 percent on 300 mg aspirin, and 4.7 percent on 1200 mg aspirin [5]. A similar dose relationship was seen for milder gastrointestinal symptoms.

In an analysis of data from 31 randomized, controlled trials, aspirin doses ≤200 mg/day were associated with a significantly lower rate of major bleeding events compared with higher doses [15]. However, there was no difference in major bleeding when aspirin <100 mg/day was compared with 100 to 200 mg/day. When the overall rate of bleeding complications (including major, minor and insignificant events) was considered, aspirin <100 mg/day was associated with a lower risk compared with the 100 to 200 mg/day and >200 mg/day groups

A later meta-analysis of 22 randomized trials of low-dose aspirin (75 to 325 mg/day) versus placebo for cardiovascular prophylaxis reached similar conclusions within the low-dose range [16]. Compared with placebo, aspirin increased the relative risk of any major bleeding, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial bleeding by 1.7- to 2.1-fold. However, the absolute annual increase in risk for any major bleeding episode (mostly gastrointestinal) and for intracranial bleeding was 0.13 and 0.03 percent, respectively. Furthermore, there was no evidence of an increased risk of bleeding with "high" low-dose aspirin (>162 to 325 mg/day) compared with "low" low-dose aspirin (75 to 162 mg/day).

CLOPIDOGREL — Clopidogrel is a thienopyridine that inhibits ADP-dependent platelet aggregation.

The CAPRIE trial randomly assigned 19,185 patients with recent stroke, MI, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (divided roughly equally between these three enrolling diseases) to treatment with aspirin (325 mg) or clopidogrel (75 mg) [17]. The primary end point, a composite outcome of stroke, MI, or vascular death, was significantly reduced with clopidogrel treatment compared with aspirin treatment (5.3 versus 5.8 percent annually, relative risk reduction 8.7 percent, 95% CI 0.3-16.5 percent).

The benefit of clopidogrel over aspirin in the CAPRIE trial varied based on enrolling disease [17]. Most of the benefit was observed in patients with peripheral artery disease, and the difference in composite outcome between clopidogrel and aspirin treatment in patients with recent stroke and myocardial infarction was not significant. However, the strength of these observations is limited, since they are based on subgroup analyses.

Polymorphisms in the hepatic enzymes involved in the metabolism of clopidogrel (eg, CYP1A2, CYP3A4, CYP2C19) or within the platelet P2Y12 receptor may affect the ability of clopidogrel to inhibit platelet aggregation. However, there are no convincing prospective data to support routine testing for clopidogrel resistance with in vitro tests of platelet function or genotyping in patients with cardiovascular disease, particularly for those with a history of stroke or TIA. A 2010 clinical alert from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association noted that adherence to existing guidelines for the use of antiplatelet therapy should remain the basis for therapy, and further that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine platelet function testing or genetic testing for clopidogrel [18].

The issue of resistance/nonresponse to clopidogrel in cardiovascular disease is discussed in greater detail separately. (See "Nonresponse and resistance to clopidogrel".)

Side effects of clopidogrel — The side effect profile of clopidogrel is favorable compared with aspirin, with a slightly higher frequency of rash and diarrhea, but a slightly lower frequency of gastric upset or gastrointestinal bleeding [16]. Unlike its close relative ticlopidine (see 'Ticlopidine' below), severe neutropenia is not seen more frequently with clopidogrel than with aspirin [17].

Aspirin plus clopidogrel — The combined use of aspirin and clopidogrel does not offer greater benefit for stroke prevention than either agent alone but does substantially increase the risk of bleeding complications [19-21].

This conclusion is supported by results from the MATCH trial [19]. This study enrolled 7599 patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) who also had some additional "high-risk" feature, defined as prior MI, prior stroke (in addition to the index event), diabetes, angina, or symptomatic peripheral artery disease (PAD). The primary end point was a composite of ischemic stroke, MI, vascular death, or rehospitalization for acute ischemia. Patients were randomly assigned to the combination of clopidogrel (75 mg daily) plus aspirin (75 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily) alone. Follow-up was 18 months. The following observations were reported [19]:

  • Aspirin plus clopidogrel treatment did not reduce the risk of major vascular events compared with clopidogrel alone (relative risk reduction 6.4 percent, 95% CI -4.6 to 16.3 percent).
  • Aspirin plus clopidogrel was associated with a significant increase in life-threatening bleeding complications, mainly intracranial and gastrointestinal, compared with clopidogrel alone. Over the 18-month trial period, there was an absolute excess of 1.3 percent for life-threatening hemorrhage (95% CI 0.6-1.9) and an additional 1.3 percent for major hemorrhage in patients assigned combination therapy.
  • Overall, treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone might prevent 10 ischemic events per 1000 treated (not statistically significant) at the cost of 13 life-threatening hemorrhages per 1000 treated.

Several authors have noted limitations of MATCH. For instance, 54 percent of MATCH subjects qualified for trial entry because of a lacunar stroke, a stroke subtype that has the lowest recurrence risk [22]. Furthermore, data regarding interaction between treatment and stroke mechanism were not reported, raising the question of whether combination therapy might still play a role in particular stroke subtypes.

The combination of aspirin and clopidogrel has been shown to have benefit over aspirin alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, there are important differences between patients with coronary and cerebrovascular disease [23], and between short-term therapy initiated in the acute setting, and longer term preventative therapy. The results of the MATCH trial serve to emphasize these differences. (See "Antiplatelet agents in acute non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes", section on 'Clopidogrel therapy'.)

In contrast to the MATCH trial [19], which evaluated aspirin plus clopidogrel versus clopidogrel alone in patients with stroke or TIA, the CHARISMA trial evaluated aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone in patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease or asymptomatic multiple cardiovascular risk factors [20]. In this patient population, the combination of aspirin plus clopidogrel was not more effective than aspirin alone for reducing the rate of MI, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes.

CHARISMA enrolled 15,603 patients with either documented cardiovascular disease (coronary, ischemic cerebrovascular, or peripheral arterial) or, in 21 percent of patients, multiple atherothrombotic risk factors (eg, diabetes, hypertension, primary hypercholesterolemia, current smoking, asymptomatic carotid stenosis ≥70 percent) and randomly assigned them to low-dose aspirin (75 to 162 mg/day) plus either clopidogrel (75 mg/day) or placebo.

The following observations were reported at a median of 28 months [20]:

  • Combined aspirin plus clopidogrel treatment did not reduce the risk of the composite primary end point (MI, stroke of any cause, or death from cardiovascular causes) compared with aspirin alone (6.8 versus 7.3 percent, relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.83-1.05)
  • Combination therapy compared with aspirin alone was associated with a significant increase in moderate bleeding (2.1 versus 1.3 percent) and a nonsignificant increase in severe bleeding (1.7 versus 1.3 percent)

DIPYRIDAMOLE — Dipyridamole impairs platelet function by inhibiting the activity of adenosine deaminase and phosphodiesterase, which causes an accumulation of adenosine, adenine nucleotides, and cyclic AMP. Dipyridamole may also cause vasodilation.

Dipyridamole is currently available in two forms:

  • An immediate-release form, usually given as 50 to 100 mg three times per day
  • A proprietary formulation containing both extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) 200 mg and 25 mg aspirin, given two times per day

The effectiveness of dipyridamole monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention was established by the following studies:

  • The ESPS-2 trial randomly assigned 6602 patients with a recent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or ischemic stroke to one of four groups: 200 mg ER-DP alone given twice daily; 25 mg aspirin alone given twice daily; 25 mg aspirin plus 200 mg extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) given twice daily; and placebo [6]. An independent and significant benefit for stroke risk reduction was observed for both ER-DP monotherapy (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.99) and aspirin monotherapy (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97) compared with placebo. The benefit of combination ER-DP plus aspirin was significantly greater still than the two components alone (see 'Aspirin plus dipyridamole' below) and significantly greater than placebo (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.73).
  • A subsequent meta-analysis of individual patient data from all available randomized trials found that dipyridamole alone was effective for reducing recurrent stroke compared with control (odds ratio (OR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.68-1.0) [24]. Since the ESPS-2 trial [6] provided 57 percent of the data in this meta-analysis, it is possible that ESPS-2 was the primary driver behind the results [24]. When ESPS-2 data were excluded, the effectiveness of dipyridamole alone compared with control did not achieve statistical significance. Whether this is related to the lower doses and immediate-release formulation used in trials other than ESPS-2 remains unclear.

Side effects of dipyridamole — Headache is a well known side effect of dipyridamole [24], and was the most frequent adverse event associated with ER-DP in two large clinical trials, ESPS-2 and ESPRIT [6,25]. In a study of subjects aged 55 or older treated with the combination of aspirin plus ER-DP, headache developed in 39.7 percent after a single dose, and women were significantly more likely to develop headache than men (49.6 and 28.6 percent, respectively) [26]. The headaches associated with aspirin plus ER-DP treatment were mostly self-limited, and treatment with acetaminophen was not significantly better than with placebo, as measured by response at two hours (75.5 and 69.4 percent). The overall incidence of headache declined markedly over seven days to less than 20 percent. Gastric upset and/or diarrhea requiring drug cessation was also more common with dipyridamole compared with aspirin or placebo in ESPS-2.

Notably, aspirin use was associated with significantly greater overall bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding compared with dipyridamole or placebo in ESPS-2 and a subsequent meta-analysis [6,24]. In fact, in ESPS-2, the frequency of bleeding complications with dipyridamole was comparable to placebo.

Cardiac effects — Concern that dipyridamole use might lead to increased rates of myocardial ischemia has been largely laid to rest by data from two large clinical trials (ESPS-2 and ESPRIT) and a meta-analysis [24,25,27]. This concern is related to the potential for dipyridamole to cause vasodilation of coronary vessels [28], and it first arose with the use of intravenous dipyridamole in cardiac stress testing [29]. Because of this issue, the 2002 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline for the management of patients with chronic stable angina recommend avoidance of dipyridamole in patients with stable angina [30].

However, the following observations suggest that ER-DP use for stroke prevention is NOT associated with an increased risk of myocardial ischemia or infarction:

  • An analysis of data from ESPS-2 found that use of ER-DP was not associated with increased cardiac ischemia or mortality in patients with a history of coronary artery disease [27].
  • A meta-analysis found that oral dipyridamole had a neutral cardiac effect and did not alter the rate of myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with previous stroke or TIA, either when compared with control, or when administered in combination with aspirin and compared with aspirin alone [24].
  • In ESPRIT, the use of combination therapy with aspirin and dipyridamole, mainly ER-DP, was associated with a nonsignificant decrease in the outcome of first cardiac event, and a significant decrease in the primary composite outcome that included death from all vascular causes and nonfatal MI [25]. (See 'Aspirin plus dipyridamole' below.)

Aspirin plus dipyridamole — The beneficial effects of aspirin and dipyridamole for secondary stroke prevention appear to be additive such that the combination of aspirin-extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) is significantly more effective than aspirin alone for stroke prevention. The data supporting this conclusion come from the following randomized trials:

  • In a meta-analysis of six randomized trials with 7648 patients, stroke risk was significantly reduced with aspirin plus dipyridamole (including immediate and extended-release formulations) compared with aspirin alone (relative risk 0.77, 95% CI 0.67-0.89) [31]. Nearly 80 percent of the patients in this meta-analysis came from just two trials, ESPS-2 and ESPRIT.
  • In the ESPS-2 trial, the stroke rate at 24 months of follow-up was significantly reduced in the aspirin plus ER-DP group compared with the aspirin alone group (9.9 versus 12.9 percent; relative risk reduction 23 percent, 95% CI 9.2-37.0) [6]. There was no significant difference in the risk of death between the two groups. The risk of bleeding complications was not significantly different between the aspirin plus ER-DP group and the aspirin monotherapy group, whereas both groups experienced a greater frequency of bleeding complications than the placebo group.
  • In the later ESPRIT trial, 2739 patients within six months of a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin were randomly assigned to open-label treatment with aspirin (30 to 325 mg/day) alone or aspirin plus dipyridamole (200 mg twice daily). The median aspirin dose was 75 mg/day in both treatment groups, and the dipyridamole formulation used by most patients (83 percent) was extended release rather than immediate release [25]. Over a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, the composite primary outcome (death from all vascular causes, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or major bleeding complication) was significantly less frequent in the aspirin plus dipyridamole group than the aspirin group (13 versus 16 percent, hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66-0.98, absolute risk reduction 1.0 percent per year).

ESPRIT included patients using aspirin doses ranging from 30 to 325 mg daily, allaying concerns that the very low aspirin dose (25 mg twice daily) used in ESPS-2 was in part responsible for the benefit of combined aspirin plus ER-DP over aspirin alone.

The specific dipyridamole preparation may be important. In the meta-analysis cited above, the combination of aspirin and immediate-release dipyridamole was nonsignificantly better than aspirin alone for secondary prevention of stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.59-1.15) [31]. In contrast, extended release dipyridamole was used in all or the vast majority of patients in the much larger ESPS-2 and ESPRIT trials [6,25], and aspirin plus ER-DP was associated with a significant reduction in stroke risk compared with aspirin alone (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.89) [31].

Headache is the most common side effect of dipyridamole. (See 'Side effects of dipyridamole' above.)

There has been concern that dipyridamole might induce coronary ischemia by a coronary steal phenomenon caused by vasodilation. Although the combination of aspirin plus ER-DP does not provide additional benefit over aspirin alone for reducing MI, neither ESPS-2 nor ESPRIT found an increase in risk [6,25]. (See 'Cardiac effects' above.)

Aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel — The PRoFESS trial showed that clopidogrel monotherapy and aspirin plus ER-DP have similar risks and benefits for secondary stroke prevention [32]. The trial enrolled 20,332 patients with noncardioembolic ischemic stroke and randomly assigned them to treatment with either aspirin plus ER-DP (25/200 mg twice daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg once daily). PRoFESS had a 2x2 factorial design in which the patients were also randomly assigned to telmisartan or placebo, the results of which are discussed elsewhere. (See "Treatment of hypertension in patients who have had a stroke", section on 'PRoFESS trial'.)

At an average follow-up of 2.5 years, the following observations were noted with antiplatelet therapy:

  • There was no difference between treatment with aspirin plus ER-DP or clopidogrel for the primary outcome of recurrent stroke (9.0 versus 8.8 percent, hazard ratio [HR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.92-1.11).
  • There was no treatment difference between aspirin plus ER-DP and clopidogrel for the composite secondary outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death (13.1 versus 13.1 percent, HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92-1.07).
  • Despite the nearly identical event rates for both the primary and secondary outcomes, the trial failed to meet the prespecified noninferiority criteria for treatment with aspirin plus ER-DP.
  • Among patients who had recurrent strokes, the rate of recurrent ischemic stroke was slightly lower in those assigned to aspirin plus ER-DP compared with clopidogrel (7.7 vs 7.9 percent), but hemorrhagic strokes were slightly increased (0.9 vs 0.5 percent). The benefit-risk ratio, expressed as the combination of recurrent stroke plus major hemorrhage, was not significantly different between aspirin plus ER-DP and clopidogrel (11.7 versus 11.4 percent; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95-1.11).
  • New or worsening heart failure was slightly less frequent in patients assigned to aspirin plus ER-DP compared to those assigned to clopidogrel; the difference was significant (1.4 versus 1.8 percent, 95% CI 0.62-0.96).
  • Discontinuation due to headache was significantly more frequent in patients assigned to aspirin plus ER-DP than in those assigned to clopidogrel (5.9 versus 0.9 percent).

OTHER AGENTS

Ticlopidine — Ticlopidine is a thienopyridine with a chemical structure and mechanism of action similar to clopidogrel. Its role in stroke prevention has been evaluated in three major trials.

  • The CATS trial compared ticlopidine with placebo in patients who had suffered a significant stroke. At a mean of 24 months follow-up, the primary composite end point of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death was significantly lower with ticlopidine compared with placebo (10.8 versus 15.3 percent, relative risk reduction 30 percent) [33]. Analysis by intention-to-treat gave a smaller estimate of relative risk reduction for stroke, MI, or vascular death (23 percent).
  • The TASS trial compared ticlopidine (500 mg/d) to aspirin (1300 mg/d) in 3069 patients with a recent transient ischemic attack (TIA) or mild stroke [34]. At three-year follow-up, ticlopidine was associated with a significant reduction in the primary end point (nonfatal stroke or death) compared with aspirin (17 versus 19 percent). Ticlopidine treatment was also associated with a significant reduction in the rate of fatal and nonfatal stroke compared with aspirin (10 versus 13 percent, respectively; relative risk reduction 21 percent [95% CI, 4 - 38]).
  • The AAASPS trial compared ticlopidine (500 mg/day) to aspirin (650 mg/day) in 1809 black patients with noncardioembolic ischemic stroke [35]. At two-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in the primary end point (stroke, MI, vascular death) between ticlopidine and aspirin. However, for the end point of fatal or non-fatal stroke, there was a trend favoring aspirin over ticlopidine.

Despite the evidence of benefit in the CATS and TASS trials, ticlopidine is generally not considered a first-line antiplatelet agent for stroke prevention because of side effects and relatively high cost. (See 'Choosing initial therapy' below.)

Side effects of ticlopidine — The most serious complication of ticlopidine therapy is severe neutropenia, which occurs in approximately 1 percent of patients. Thus, for the first three months of treatment, patients must undergo biweekly complete blood counts. This side effect limits the utility of ticlopidine. Other common side effects, which occur more frequently with ticlopidine than aspirin, are rash and diarrhea.

Cilostazol — The antiplatelet agent cilostazol is a phosphodiesterase 3 inhibitor that is used mainly for intermittent claudication in patients with peripheral artery disease. Several controlled trials have found that cilostazol is effective for preventing cerebral infarction.

  • In the CSPS trial of over 1000 patients from Japan, cilostazol (100 mg twice daily) compared with placebo significantly reduced the risk of stroke (relative risk reduction 42 percent, 95% CI 9.2-62.5 percent) [36].
  • In the CASISP trial from China of 720 patients with recent ischemic stroke, the composite endpoint (any stroke, ischemic or hemorrhagic) at 12 to 18 months of follow-up was lower in the cilostazol group compared with the aspirin group (3.3 versus 5.6 percent, hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.26) but this result was not statistically significant [37].
  • In the non-inferiority CSPS II trial, 2757 patients in Japan with a recent noncardioembolic cerebral infarction were randomly assigned to cilostazol (100 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 mg daily) [38]. At a mean follow-up of 29 months, the yearly rates of recurrent stroke (infarction or hemorrhage) for cilostazol and aspirin were 2.7 and 3.7 percent (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56-0.98), confirming that cilostazol is non-inferior to aspirin for stroke prevention. Annual rates of hemorrhagic events (intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, or other hemorrhage requiring hospitalization) were lower with cilostazol than with aspirin (0.8 versus 1.8 percent, HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30-0.71). However, headache, diarrhea, palpitation, dizziness, and tachycardia were more frequent with cilostazol, and more patients discontinued cilostazol than aspirin (20 versus 12 percent).

These data support the safety and efficacy of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention in Asian populations. However, there are as yet no high-quality data regarding the use of cilostazol for secondary stroke prevention in non-Asian ethnic groups. Also, the lower tolerability and higher cost of cilostazol compared with aspirin may limit its more widespread use for stroke prevention.

Triflusal — Triflusal is an antiplatelet agent that is structurally related to aspirin. It is available as a licensed pharmaceutical in some European and Latin American countries, but is considered investigational in the United States.

In a randomized trial with 2113 patients, the effectiveness of triflusal was similar to aspirin (325 mg/day) at preventing vascular events after stroke, but it did have a lower rate of hemorrhagic complications [39]. Similar findings were noted in a smaller randomized trial and a meta-analysis of four trials [40,41]. It is not clear whether triflusal would have had a lower rate of hemorrhagic complications than lower-dose aspirin [42].

CHOOSING INITIAL THERAPY — Aspirin is effective for secondary stroke prevention in patients with noncardioembolic TIA and ischemic stroke. However, clopidogrel treatment was better than aspirin as measured by a composite outcome of stroke, MI, or vascular death in the CAPRIE study [17], and the combination of aspirin and ER-DP had greater benefit for secondary stroke risk reduction than aspirin alone in two clinical trials (ESPS-2 and ESPRIT) [6,25].

Current guidelines from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommend that patients with a noncardioembolic (ie, atherothrombotic, lacunar, or cryptogenic) stroke or TIA and no contraindication receive an antiplatelet agent to reduce the risk of recurrent stroke [13,43]. These guidelines note that aspirin, clopidogrel, and the combination of aspirin plus extended-release dipyridamole (ER-DP) (Aggrenox) are all acceptable options for preventing recurrent noncardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA).

Both the 2011 AHA/ASA guidelines and the 2008 ACCP guidelines recommend the use of the combination of aspirin and ER-DP instead of aspirin [13,43], and the ACCP guideline suggests clopidogrel over aspirin [13]. However, the subsequent publication of the PRoFESS trial provides high-quality evidence that clopidogrel monotherapy and aspirin plus ER-DP are equivalent in terms of effectiveness and safety for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke [32].

Given the available data, we generally suggest treatment with either clopidogrel 75 mg daily as monotherapy, or aspirin plus ER-DP 25 mg/200 mg twice a day, rather than aspirin alone. Some experts still prefer aspirin as the first-line agent, noting that the alternative antiplatelet regimens (clopidogrel or combined aspirin and ER-DP) have an apparent modest advantage in benefit that is offset by a severe disadvantage in cost. In the United States, the approximate monthly cost of aspirin monotherapy is $12, while clopidogrel is $166, and aspirin plus ER-DP (Aggrenox) is $180.

Immediate-release dipyridamole cannot be routinely recommended for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke, given the limited evidence supporting its effectiveness and the significant pharmacokinetic differences between it and ER-DP. Ticlopidine is rarely used because of its side-effect profile and lack of clear superiority over the other available agents. Aspirin and clopidogrel should not be used in combination for stroke prevention, given the lack of greater efficacy compared with either agent alone, and given the substantially increased risk of bleeding complications.

INFORMATION FOR PATIENTS — UpToDate offers two types of patient education materials, “The Basics” and “Beyond the Basics.” The Basics patient education pieces are written in plain language, at the 5th to 6th grade reading level, and they answer the four or five key questions a patient might have about a given condition. These articles are best for patients who want a general overview and who prefer short, easy-to-read materials. Beyond the Basics patient education pieces are longer, more sophisticated, and more detailed. These articles are written at the 10th to 12th grade reading level and are best for patients who want in-depth information and are comfortable with some medical jargon.

Here are the patient education articles that are relevant to this topic. We encourage you to print or e-mail these topics to your patients. (You can also locate patient education articles on a variety of subjects by searching on “patient info” and the keyword(s) of interest.)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Use of UpToDate is subject to the Subscription and License Agreement.

REFERENCES

  1. Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002; 324:71.
  2. Antithrombotic Trialists' (ATT) Collaboration, Baigent C, Blackwell L, et al. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet 2009; 373:1849.
  3. Sibon I, Orgogozo JM. Antiplatelet drug discontinuation is a risk factor for ischemic stroke. Neurology 2004; 62:1187.
  4. Maulaz AB, Bezerra DC, Michel P, Bogousslavsky J. Effect of discontinuing aspirin therapy on the risk of brain ischemic stroke. Arch Neurol 2005; 62:1217.
  5. Farrell B, Godwin J, Richards S, Warlow C. The United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack (UK-TIA) aspirin trial: final results. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1991; 54:1044.
  6. Diener HC, Cunha L, Forbes C, et al. European Stroke Prevention Study. 2. Dipyridamole and acetylsalicylic acid in the secondary prevention of stroke. J Neurol Sci 1996; 143:1.
  7. United Kingdom transient ischaemic attack (UK-TIA) aspirin trial: interim results. UK-TIA Study Group. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296:316.
  8. Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296:320.
  9. The European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS). Principal end-points. The ESPS Group. Lancet 1987; 2:1351.
  10. Johnson ES, Lanes SF, Wentworth CE 3rd, et al. A metaregression analysis of the dose-response effect of aspirin on stroke. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:1248.
  11. A comparison of two doses of aspirin (30 mg vs. 283 mg a day) in patients after a transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke. The Dutch TIA Trial Study Group. N Engl J Med 1991; 325:1261.
  12. Patrono C, García Rodríguez LA, Landolfi R, Baigent C. Low-dose aspirin for the prevention of atherothrombosis. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2373.
  13. Albers GW, Amarenco P, Easton JD, et al. Antithrombotic and thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133:630S.
  14. Hirsh J, Dalen JE, Fuster V, et al. Aspirin and other platelet-active drugs. The relationship among dose, effectiveness, and side effects. Chest 1995; 108:247S.
  15. Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, et al. Analysis of risk of bleeding complications after different doses of aspirin in 192,036 patients enrolled in 31 randomized controlled trials. Am J Cardiol 2005; 95:1218.
  16. McQuaid KR, Laine L. Systematic review and meta-analysis of adverse events of low-dose aspirin and clopidogrel in randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 2006; 119:624.
  17. A randomised, blinded, trial of clopidogrel versus aspirin in patients at risk of ischaemic events (CAPRIE). CAPRIE Steering Committee. Lancet 1996; 348:1329.
  18. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Writing Committee Members, et al. ACCF/AHA Clopidogrel clinical alert: approaches to the FDA "boxed warning": a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents and the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010; 122:537.
  19. Diener HC, Bogousslavsky J, Brass LM, et al. Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2004; 364:331.
  20. Bhatt DL, Fox KA, Hacke W, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1706.
  21. Usman MH, Notaro LA, Nagarakanti R, et al. Combination antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention: enhanced efficacy or double trouble? Am J Cardiol 2009; 103:1107.
  22. Amarenco P, Donnan GA. Should the MATCH results be extrapolated to all stroke patients and affect ongoing trials evaluating clopidogrel plus aspirin? Stroke 2004; 35:2606.
  23. Liao JK. Secondary prevention of stroke and transient ischemic attack: is more platelet inhibition the answer? Circulation 2007; 115:1615.
  24. Leonardi-Bee J, Bath PM, Bousser MG, et al. Dipyridamole for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke and other vascular events: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized controlled trials. Stroke 2005; 36:162.
  25. ESPRIT Study Group, Halkes PH, van Gijn J, et al. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2006; 367:1665.
  26. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Kolodner KB, et al. Acetaminophen in the treatment of headaches associated with dipyridamole-aspirin combination. Neurology 2004; 63:1099.
  27. Diener HC, Darius H, Bertrand-Hardy JM, et al. Cardiac safety in the European Stroke Prevention Study 2 (ESPS2). Int J Clin Pract 2001; 55:162.
  28. Tran H, Anand SS. Oral antiplatelet therapy in cerebrovascular disease, coronary artery disease, and peripheral arterial disease. JAMA 2004; 292:1867.
  29. Pfisterer, M. Intravenous dipyridamole for stress thallium-201 perfusion scintigraphy. Cardiovasc Imag 1992; 4:31.
  30. Gibbons RJ, Abrams J, Chatterjee K, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with chronic stable angina--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina). Circulation 2003; 107:149.
  31. Verro P, Gorelick PB, Nguyen D. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin for prevention of vascular events after stroke or TIA: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2008; 39:1358.
  32. Sacco RL, Diener HC, Yusuf S, et al. Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1238.
  33. Gent M, Blakely JA, Easton JD, et al. The Canadian American Ticlopidine Study (CATS) in thromboembolic stroke. Lancet 1989; 1:1215.
  34. Hass WK, Easton JD, Adams HP Jr, et al. A randomized trial comparing ticlopidine hydrochloride with aspirin for the prevention of stroke in high-risk patients. Ticlopidine Aspirin Stroke Study Group. N Engl J Med 1989; 321:501.
  35. Gorelick PB, Richardson D, Kelly M, et al. Aspirin and ticlopidine for prevention of recurrent stroke in black patients: a randomized trial. JAMA 2003; 289:2947.
  36. Matsumoto M. Cilostazol in secondary prevention of stroke: impact of the Cilostazol Stroke Prevention Study. Atheroscler Suppl 2005; 6:33.
  37. Huang Y, Cheng Y, Wu J, et al. Cilostazol as an alternative to aspirin after ischaemic stroke: a randomised, double-blind, pilot study. Lancet Neurol 2008; 7:494.
  38. Shinohara Y, Katayama Y, Uchiyama S, et al. Cilostazol for prevention of secondary stroke (CSPS 2): an aspirin-controlled, double-blind, randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9:959.
  39. Matías-Guiu J, Ferro JM, Alvarez-Sabín J, et al. Comparison of triflusal and aspirin for prevention of vascular events in patients after cerebral infarction: the TACIP Study: a randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial. Stroke 2003; 34:840.
  40. Culebras A, Rotta-Escalante R, Vila J, et al. Triflusal vs aspirin for prevention of cerebral infarction: a randomized stroke study. Neurology 2004; 62:1073.
  41. Costa J, Ferro JM, Matias-Guiu J, et al. Triflusal for preventing serious vascular events in people at high risk. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD004296.
  42. Anderson DC, Goldstein LB. Aspirin: it's hard to beat. Neurology 2004; 62:1036.
  43. Furie KL, Kasner SE, Adams RJ, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the american heart association/american stroke association. Stroke 2011; 42:227.
Topic 1086 Version 20.0

All topics are updated as new information becomes available. Our peer review process typically takes one to six weeks depending on the issue.