摘要

Objective To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of different antiplatelet regimens in patients with prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources As on 31 March 2015, all randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of antiplatelet agents in the long-term (3months) secondary prevention of non-cardioembolic transient ischaemic attack or ischaemic stroke were searched and identified. Outcome measures The primary outcome measure of efficacy was serious vascular events (non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and vascular death). The outcome measure of safety was any bleeding. Results A total of 36 randomised controlled trials (82144 patients) were included. Network meta-analysis showed that cilostazol was significantly more effective than clopidogrel (OR 0.77, 95% credible interval 0.60-0.98) and low-dose (75-162mg daily) aspirin (0.69, 0.55-0.86) in the prevention of serious vascular events. Aspirin (50mg daily) plus dipyridamole (400mg daily) and clopidogrel reduced the risk of serious vascular events compared with low-dose aspirin; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, low-dose aspirin was as effective as higher daily doses. Cilostazol was associated with a significantly lower bleeding risk than most of the other regimens. Moreover, aspirin plus clopidogrel was associated with significantly more haemorrhagic events than other regimens. Direct comparisons showed similar results as the network meta-analysis. Conclusions Cilostazol was significantly more effective than aspirin and clopidogrel alone in the long-term prevention of serious vascular events in patients with prior non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Cilostazol was associated with a significantly lower bleeding risk than low-dose aspirin (75-162mg daily) and aspirin (50mg daily) plus dipyridamole (400mg daily). Low-dose aspirin was as effective as higher daily doses. However, further large, randomised, controlled, head-to-head trials are needed, especially in non-Asian ethnic groups.