Abstract
Introduction
Whether patients with acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) and prior antiplatelet therapy (APT) are at higher risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH) has not been established. This study aimed to determine whether prior APT increases the risk of bleeding.
Methods
41,113 patients treated for AIS in Switzerland between 2014 and 2022 were analysed. The primary outcome was sICH, and secondary outcomes were recurrent ischaemic stroke (IS), all-cause mortality, functional outcome at discharge and 90 days. Patients grouped by prior APT: no APT (nAPT), single APT (SAPT), and dual APT (DAPT) were analysed using logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression. Confounding variables, including revascularisation treatment, were accounted for using multivariable adjustment and matching, and a time-to-event analysis was performed.
Results
In the adjusted analysis at 90 days, patients with nAPT versus SAPT had a decreased risk of sICH (aOR 0.75 (0.62–0.90), p < 0.01), while these occurred within the first days. There was no difference in the risk of recurrent IS, all-cause mortality, or functional outcome. Patients with DAPT had no higher risk of sICH or mortality than those with SAPT, but a higher occurrence of recurrent IS (aOR 1.41 (1.12–1.77), p < 0.01) and worse functional outcome (aOR 1.18 (1.07–1.31), p < 0.01). The results were consistent after adjusting for revascularisation treatment.
Conclusions
Patients with nAPT had a lower risk of sICH than those with SAPT. Patients with DAPT have a higher risk of recurrent IS and worse functional outcome respectively. The majority of sICH occurred within the first days after admission.
Keywords: Ischaemic stroke, platelet aggregation inhibitors, intracranial haemorrhages, aspirin, clopidogrel
Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract.
Introduction
Acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) remains a leading cause of disability and mortality worldwide, particularly among the elderly. Antiplatelet therapy (APT) is commonly used to reduce the risk of AIS in high-risk patients, including those with a history of AIS or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and for various cardiological indications. While APT is effective in reducing the risk of thromboembolic events, it may also increase the risk of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH), with implications for patient outcomes.
Several studies addressed the relationship between APT and sICH in selected patients with AIS who underwent reperfusion treatments, such as intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) or endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Heterogeneous results have been reported, with some studies suggesting that prior APT increases the risk of sICH in patients with AIS,1–6 while others have found no significant association.7–11 In patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis (IVT), systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that prior APT increases the risk of sICH only in unadjusted analyses. The association was no longer significant once the analyses were adjusted for various confounders.12–14 Despite these ambiguous results, most studies have focussed on patients undergoing reperfusion treatments, and data on the broader population of patients with ischaemic stroke are lacking.
Indeed, many patients with AIS do not receive reperfusion treatment but are treated with antithrombotic therapies, at least such as single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). The use of DAPT, particularly in patients with moderate-to-severe AIS, has become increasingly common in clinical practice.15 Studies such as CHANCE,16 POINT,17 and INSPIRES18 have examined DAPT after the index event in specific populations. However, the broader question of whether prior APT increases the risk of sICH in the population of patients with ischaemic stroke, regardless of reperfusion treatments, remains insufficiently addressed.
This study focuses on these gaps by investigating a broad cohort of patients with AIS. Specifically, we aimed to (i) determine whether patients with AIS who received SAPT or DAPT prior to diagnosis are at a higher risk for sICH than those with no prior APT and (ii) examine the association of prior APT with recurrent IS, all-cause mortality, and functional outcome.
Patients and methods
Study design and patient selection
All consecutive adult patients with cerebrovascular events who were treated in one of the 14 certified Stroke Units or 10 Stroke Centres in Switzerland (list of centres in Supplemental Table S1) were enrolled in the Swiss Stroke Registry (SSR), and their data were recorded in its web-based registry. The SSR was initiated to prospectively collect data for quality control in acute stroke management, which also allows addressing clinically important research questions, as done previously.19–22 The SSR covers approximately 85% of all stroke patients in Switzerland and is considered to be representative. Predefined variables were collected from all participating centres. Data during hospitalisation were obtained from the patient files, and the 90-day data were collected either clinically in a neurovascular consultation or through structured telephone interviews with the patient or next of kin.
For this study, data from all patients with AIS as a qualifying event between 01/2014 and 11/2022 were included. Patients who objected to the use of their data for scientific purposes, were under oral anticoagulants before the qualifying event, had missing data on medical treatment before stroke onset, or had incomplete follow-up were excluded.
Our analysis followed the STROBE guidelines for observational studies.23
Exposures
The exposure was prior APT, defined as the use of aspirin, clopidogrel, ticagrelor, prasugrel, or dipyridamole. Either alone (SAPT) or in combination (DAPT).
Outcomes
The primary outcome was symptomatic ICH, defined as radiologically visible bleeding in combination with a ⩾4 points worsening in the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score, measured at hospital discharge and within 90 days after the initial event.24
The secondary outcomes were (1) recurrent IS, (2) all-cause mortality, and (3) functional outcome assessed using the mRS. Outcomes (1) and (2) were measured at hospital discharge and within 90 days after the initial event, and outcome (3) was measured 90 days after the initial event.
The time of occurrence of sICH, recurrent IS, and all-cause mortality was also recorded and analysed.
Statistical analysis
Demographic variables and patient characteristics were presented as frequencies and percentages, and continuous data as median and interquartile range (IQR). Baseline data were also analysed for temporal trends in prior APT and revascularisation treatments. Baseline data of the excluded patients were presented and compared with those of the included patients.
Main analysis
The primary outcome (sICH) and binary secondary outcomes (recurrent IS, all-cause mortality) were analysed using both (a) logistic regression and (b) Cox regression, while the 90-day mRS was analysed using ordinal logistic regression.
To mitigate the risk of bias, a directed acyclic graph (DAG) was created using DAGitty.25 The details are provided in the Supplemental.
The following analyses were performed accordingly:
i. unadjusted with comparisons of nAPT versus SAPT and DAPT versus SAPT.
ii. regression analysis with covariate adjustment of the variables age, sex, mRS before the event, NIHSS at admission, prior TIA or amaurosis fugax, prior AIS or retinal infarction, prior ICH, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, smoking, atrial fibrillation/flutter, coronary heart disease, and documented left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, as defined in Fluri et al.26
iii. propensity score matching using the R package MatchIt.27
Details are provided in the Supplemental.
Sensitivity analysis
As a sensitivity analysis, time to sICH, recurrent IS, and all-cause mortality were analysed as time-to-event analyses using a Cox proportional hazard model. The proportional hazards assumption was checked by visually inspecting the Schoenfeld’s residuals. The results of the time-to-event analyses were compared with those of the main analysis. The details are provided in the Supplemental.
Analysis of possible mediation effect of revascularization treatments
To further assess whether the estimated effect of prior ATP was mediated by acute treatment after the qualifying event, revascularization treatment was analysed for a possible mediator effect, as described by Baron and Kenny.28,29 Details are given in the Supplemental. IVT was defined as the use of intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator. EVT was defined as the use of any mechanical intra-arterial treatment with or without intra-arterial recombinant tissue plasminogen activator or intra-arterial urokinase.
Handling of missing values
The missing values were summarised for each variable. Imputation was performed using Chained Equations in the R package MICE.30 If patients died within the first 3 months, we did not impute outcomes sICH and stroke. Details are given in the Supplemental.
The results are presented as estimated effect sizes with measures of variance and precision. The hypotheses were predefined in the statistical analysis plan. The adjusting variables were predefined to minimise bias and allow causal interpretation, given the assumptions of positivity, data quality, and DAG appropriateness.31 However, as the data used in this study are part of a cohort which has been analysed by the same study team before regarding different study questions, we consider these results as post-hoc analyses. p-Values should be interpreted as continuous measures informing new hypotheses, alongside estimated effect sizes.32
All statistical analyses were performed with R version 4.1.2.33
Ethical approval
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the Ethikkommission Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz, project-ID 2022-02045. All procedures performed in this study complied with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and subsequent amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Results
Patient characteristics and revascularisation treatment
Out of 62,545 patients with AIS included in the SSR during the study period, 41,113 (65.7%) were eligible for analysis, while 21,432 (34.3%) were excluded for the following reasons: 1855 (3.0%) refused consent to use their data for research, 9901 (15.8%) were anticoagulated, 26 (0.1%) had missing data, and 9650 (15.4%) had incomplete follow-up (flowchart displayed in Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Study flowchart of patient selection from the SSR.
The sensitivity analysis of excluded patients showed no differences in the baseline data or revascularisation treatment (Supplemental Table S2).
From the study cohort 25,264 (61.5%) had nAPT, 14,504 (35.3%) had SAPT, and 1345 (3.3%) had DAPT at AIS onset. During the observation period, the percentage of patients on DAPT did not change, whereas the percentage of patients on SAPT decreased slightly (Supplemental Table S3 and Figure S1). Patients with any APT were older, more likely to have a history of stroke or TIA, had a higher prestroke mRS score, and were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, and coronary heart disease (Table 1).
Table 1.
Patient characteristics in the three groups of interest: nAPT, SAPT, and DAPT.
| nAPT | SAPT | DAPT | SMD | Missing % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 25,264 | 14,504 | 1345 | ||
| Age (median, IQR) | 70.8 (59.2, 80.3) | 78.1 (70.3, 84.7) | 74.9 (67.2, 81.7) | 0.396 | 7.8 |
| Sex | 0.160 | 0.1 | |||
| Male (%) | 14,149 (55.9) | 8768 (60.4) | 908 (67.6) | ||
| Female (%) | 11,115 (44.1) | 5736 (39.6) | 436 (32.4) | ||
| NIHSS at admission (median, IQR) | 3.0 (1.0, 8.0) | 3.0 (1.0, 8.0) | 3.0 (1.0, 7.0) | 0.034 | 0.9 |
| mRS before event (median, IQR) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 1.0) | 0.0 (0.0, 2.0) | 0.239 | 10.6 |
| Past cerebrovascular events | |||||
| TIA or amaurosis fugax (%) | 565 (2.3) | 1473 (10.2) | 151 (11.3) | 0.245 | 1.1 |
| AIS or retinal infarction (%) | 1595 (6.4) | 4366 (30.3) | 522 (39.1) | 0.561 | 1.1 |
| sICH (%) | 413 (1.7) | 279 (1.9) | 31 (2.3) | 0.032 | 1.1 |
| Frequency of prior APT by substance | |||||
| Aspirin | 0 (0) | 12,486 (86.2) | 1342 (99.8) | 11.330 | 0.6 |
| Clopidogrel | 0 (0) | 1984 (13.7) | 1128 (83.9) | 1.923 | 0.6 |
| Prasugrel | 0 (0) | 12 (0.1) | 46 (3.4) | 0.188 | 0.6 |
| Ticagrelor | 0 (0) | 8 (0.1) | 157 (11.7) | 0.353 | 0.7 |
| Dipyridamole | 0 (0) | 6 (0) | 17 (1.3) | 0.114 | 0.7 |
| Cerebrovascular risk factors | |||||
| Hypertension (%) | 15,945 (63.9) | 12,234 (84.8) | 1151 (86.3) | 0.356 | 1.7 |
| Diabetes (%) | 3859 (15.5) | 4237 (29.4) | 476 (35.7) | 0.316 | 1.7 |
| Hyperlipidaemia (%) | 15,367 (61.7) | 10,614 (73.7) | 1049 (78.6) | 0.250 | 1.8 |
| Smoking (%) | 5673 (22.9) | 2932 (20.4) | 355 (26.8) | 0.100 | 2.2 |
| Atrial fibrillation/flutter (%) | 3704 (14.8) | 2656 (18.4) | 171 (12.8) | 0.103 | 1.5 |
| Coronary heart disease (%) | 1252 (5.0) | 4580 (31.8) | 707 (53.0) | 0.807 | 1.8 |
| Low ejection fraction (%) | 300 (1.7) | 298 (2.9) | 51 (5.4) | 0.136 | 30.1 |
| NIHSS at admission (median, IQR) | 3.0 (1.0, 8.0) | 3.0 (1.0, 8.0) | 3.0 (1.0, 7.0) | 0.070 | 0.9 |
| 0 points (%) | 3964 (15.9) | 1989 (13.8) | 212 (15.9) | ||
| 1 point (%) | 3479 (13.9) | 1878 (13.0) | 176 (13.2) | ||
| 2–4 points (%) | 7669 (30.7) | 4539 (31.5) | 426 (31.9) | ||
| 5–15 points (%) | 6987 (27.9) | 4366 (30.3) | 384 (28.8) | ||
| 16–20 points (%) | 1598 (6.4) | 929 (6.4) | 82 (6.1) | ||
| 21–42 points (%) | 1304 (5.2) | 708 (4.9) | 55 (4.1) | ||
| Revascularisation treatment | |||||
| IVT (%) | 7179 (28.7) | 3981 (27.5) | 249 (18.6) | 0.160 | 0.6 |
| EVT (%) | 4217 (16.8) | 2095 (14.5) | 165 (12.3) | 0.086 | 0.5 |
| Secondary prevention | |||||
| Antiplatelet (%) | 14,293 (57.1) | 7974 (55.1) | 770 (57.3) | 0.03 | 0.6 |
| Anticoagulant (%) | 1180 (4.7) | 663 (4.6) | 62 (4.6) | 0.004 | 0.7 |
| Carotid angioplasty and stenting (%) | 350 (1.4) | 285 (2.0) | 61 (4.7) | 0.128 | 3.5 |
| Other endo-revascularisation (%) | 218 (1.0) | 117 (0.9) | 30 (2.6) | 0.084 | 13.5 |
| Other surgical-revascularisation (%) | 68 (0.3) | 52 (0.4) | 8 (0.7) | 0.036 | 13.8 |
| Patent foramen ovale closure (%) | 470 (1.9) | 49 (0.3) | 3 (0.2) | 0.112 | 3.8 |
| Outcome in hospital | |||||
| sICH in hospital (%) | 332 (1.3) | 244 (1.7) | 21 (1.6) | 0.020 | 0.0 |
| Recurrent IS in hospital (%) | 418 (1.7) | 260 (1.8) | 41 (3.0) | 0.061 | 0.0 |
| All-cause mortality in hospital (%) | 1264 (5.0) | 978 (6.7) | 91 (6.8) | 0.050 | 0.0 |
| Hospitalisation duration (days, IQR) | 6.0 (3.0, 9.0) | 6.0 (4.0, 10.0) | 7.0 (4.0, 12.0) | 0.058 | 6.0 |
| Outcome at 90-day follow-up | |||||
| sICH at 90-day follow-up (%) | 388 (1.5) | 278 (1.9) | 26 (1.9) | 0.020 | 0.0 |
| Recurrent IS at 90-day follow-up (%) | 892 (3.5) | 681 (4.7) | 96 (7.1) | 0.108 | 0.0 |
| All-cause mortality at 90-day follow-up (%) | 2496 (9.9) | 2010 (13.9) | 177 (13.2) | 0.082 | 0.0 |
| mRS at 90-day follow-up | 0.219 | 3.1 | |||
| 0 points (%) | 7878 (32.3) | 3545 (25.1) | 283 (21.8) | ||
| 1 point (%) | 5991 (24.5) | 3029 (21.4) | 282 (21.7) | ||
| 2 points (%) | 3683 (15.1) | 2122 (15.0) | 245 (18.8) | ||
| 3 points (%) | 2423 (9.9) | 1873 (13.3) | 179 (13.8) | ||
| 4 points (%) | 1600 (6.6) | 1288 (9.1) | 118 (9.1) | ||
| 5 points (%) | 314 (1.3) | 258 (1.8) | 15 (1.2) | ||
| 6 points (%) | 2520 (10.3) | 2018 (14.3) | 179 (13.8) | ||
The rates of revascularisation treatment were similar in the three groups, except for the rate of IVT, which was lower in the DAPT group than in the SAPT group (Supplemental Figure S2). During the observation period, no time trend in the percentage of IVT and EVT was detected (Supplemental Table S3 and Figures S3 and S4). The review of IVT and EVT as possible mediators showed that not all conditions for a mediator, according to Baron and Kenny, were met.28 Thus, a possible association between prior APT and sICH cannot be explained primarily by revascularisation treatment.
The follow-up examinations were conducted in 49.4% during a clinical follow-up visit, in 33.4% by phone call, and in 17.2% by written discharge letter.
Using the DAG, the relationships between the individual variables and confounders were identified. This allowed the statistical methods to be correctly selected for calculating the individual outcomes. The DAG is shown in Supplemental Figure S5.
Primary outcome
The frequency of sICH in hospital was 332 (1.3%) in patients with nAPT, 244 (1.7%) in patients with SAPT, and 21 (1.6%) in patients with DAPT. At the 90-day follow-up, the rate was 388 (1.5%) in patients with nAPT, 278 (1.9%) in patients with SAPT, and 26 (1.9%) in patients with DAPT.
The main findings were as follows: patients with nAPT appeared to have a lower risk of sICH than those with SAPT. This was observed in the hospitalisation phase (aOR 0.71 (0.59–0.87), p < 0.01) and at the 90-day follow-up (aOR 0.75 (0.63–0.90), p < 0.01). A decrease in bleeding risk was observed after adjusting for revascularisation treatment. When comparing the DAPT and SAPT groups, no increase in the risk of sICH was observed (hospitalisation aOR 1.04 (0.66–1.65), p = 0.86 and 90-day follow-up aOR 1.09 (0.72–1.66), p = 0.67). Even after adjusting for IVT and EVT, no association was observed between DAPT and sICH.
In the unadjusted analyses, the same trends were observed as in the adjusted analysis, with slightly higher ORs. Propensity score matching data showed comparable results. The time-to-event analysis showed results consistent with the main analysis.
The detailed results are presented in Table 2 and the forest plots in Supplemental Figure S6. The Kaplan-Meier curves are shown in Figure 2, and the full data are presented in Supplemental Table S4.
Table 2.
Analysis of primary outcome sICH.
|
Values are OR (boxes in red OR < 1, boxes in green OR > 1), confidence intervals and p (bold p < 0.01).
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier curves showing time to sICH, recurrent ischaemic stroke, and death over a 90-day follow-up period.
Secondary outcomes
Recurrent ischaemic stroke: 418 (1.7%) patients with nAPT had a recurrent IS in hospital, 260 (1.8%) patients with SAPT, and 41 (3.0%) patients with DAPT. At the 90-day follow-up, the rates were 892 (3.5%) in patients with nAPT, 681 (4.7%) in patients with SAPT, and 96 (7.1%) in patients with DAPT.
The main findings were as follows: the adjusted odds of recurrent IS in patients with nAPT compared to those with SAPT did not differ during the hospitalisation phase and 90-day follow-up. The same applied after adjusting for revascularisation treatment. In the unadjusted analysis, all 90-day outcomes showed a risk reduction. When comparing the groups treated with DAPT to those treated with SAPT, the risk of recurrent IS was higher in patients treated with DAPT (hospitalisation aOR 1.57 (1.11–2.21), p < 0.01 and 90-day follow-up aOR 1.41 (1.12–1.77), p < 0.01). This result was similar after additional adjustment for revascularisation treatment and was always higher in the hospitalisation phase than in the 90-day follow-up.
The time-to-event analysis showed consistent results with the main analysis.
All-cause mortality: 1264 (5.0%) patients with nAPT died in the hospital, 978 (6.7%) patients with SAPT, and 91 (6.8%) patients with DAPT. At the 90-day follow-up, the rate was 2496 (9.9%) in patients with nAPT, 2010 (13.9%) in patients with SAPT, and 177 (13.2%) in patients with DAPT.
The main findings were as follows: patients with nAPT compared to those with SAPT appeared to have a slightly lower likelihood of dying during the hospitalisation phase (aOR 0.85 (0.76–0.95), p < 0.01). At the 90-day follow-up, there were no relevant differences in the adjusted analysis, but in the unadjusted (OR 0.68 (0.64–0.73), p < 0.01). The same trend was observed for the values corrected for revascularisation treatment. When comparing the groups treated with DAPT to those treated with SAPT, there was no association observed between APT and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching data and time-to-event analysis showed comparable results.
Functional Outcome after 90 days: In terms of functional outcome measured by mRS at 90 days, a favourable neurological outcome (mRS 0–2) was seen in 17,552 (72%) patients with nAPT, 8696 (62%) patients with SAPT, and 810 (62%) patients with DAPT. 4337 (18%) patients with nAPT, 3419 (24%) patients with SAPT, and 312 (24%) patients with DAPT had an unfavourable neurological outcome (mRS 3–5).
The main findings were as follows: In patients with nAPT compared with those with SAPT, there was no relevant difference in functional outcomes after 90 days, even after adjusting for revascularisation treatment. Only the unadjusted analysis showed poorer functional outcomes. Patients with DAPT compared to those with SAPT were slightly more likely to score one point higher on the mRS (aOR 1.18 (1.07–1.31), p < 0.01) even after adjusting for revascularisation treatment. Propensity score matching data showed comparable results.
All secondary outcome results are presented in Table 3 and the forest plots in Supplemental Figure S7. The Kaplan-Meier curves are shown in Figure 2, and the full data are presented in Supplemental Table S5.
Table 3.
Analysis of secondary outcomes.
|
Values are OR (boxes in red OR < 1, boxes in green OR > 1), confidence intervals and p (bold p < 0.01).
Discussion
The data suggest that patients with prior nAPT may have a lower risk of sICH than those with SAPT, without a difference in the risk of recurrent IS. This was observed both during hospitalisation and at the 90-day follow-up, regardless of revascularisation treatment. Conversely, this means that patients with prior SAPT have an increased risk of sICH compared to those with nAPT. The majority of sICH occurred within the few first days of acute hospitalisation. As mentioned in the introduction, previous studies mostly included only patients who underwent IVT or EVT under prior APT but no patients who received other treatments. In the case of prior APT, they only made a difference between any APT and nAPT.
In studies with IVT patients, the outcome sICH was partially increased in patients with prior APT compared to patients without APT: Pan et al.34 aOR 1.65 (1.44–1.90), Luo et al.35 aOR 1.21 (1.02–1.44), Naeem et al.36 aOR 1.78 (1.48–2.13). Others did not show a higher risk: Tsivgoulis et al.13 reported an aOR of 1.67 (0.75–3.72), and Malhotra et al.10 reported an aOR of 2.03 (0.75–5.52). In patients who underwent EVT, a new meta-analysis by Wu et al.37 found an increased bleeding risk, with a reported aOR of 1.31 (0.95–1.81).
While there was a higher risk of sICH, there was no increased risk of recurrent IS in the secondary outcomes (aOR 0.91 (0.81–1.03)).
Previous SAPT was associated with increased overall mortality during hospitalisation. No differences were observed at the 90-day follow-up. Therefore, it appears that these patients do not die more often but earlier (during the hospitalisation phase, which was minimally longer in patients with SAPT than in those with nAPT).
Further, the results indicate that patients who received prior DAPT may have a higher risk of recurrent IS without an increased risk of sICH during hospitalisation and at the 90-day follow-up, regardless of revascularisation treatment. Only a few studies have examined the risk of recurrent IS in patients with prior APT. A smaller study from 2021 with 2066 patients found no increased risk of recurrent IS after adjustment.38 Recently, a paper from the same SSR was published with a focus on ischaemic stroke despite APT without distinguishing between SAPT and DAPT use. Antiplatelet use was associated with a higher risk of recurrent stroke at 3 months, but it was not directly linked to adverse functional outcomes or all-cause mortality.39
Patients with prior DAPT experience more recurrent ischaemic strokes but not more sICH than patients with prior SAPT, which could be a reason for reconsidering the widespread hesitance to administer IVT or EVT in patients on DAPT. Further research should focus on the overall risk-benefit profile for IVT or EVT in patients on DAPT.
General thoughts: The differences in baseline data were consistent with other prospective registry studies of APT and stroke, such as the study by Sylaja et al.,38 and the matched data were well balanced. The differences in stroke, TIA, and coronary heart disease could be explained by the association between the first event or myocardial infarction and APT prescription.
Patients on DAPT were less likely to receive IVT or EVT than those on SAPT (corrected for covariates). It is unclear whether the treating physicians were more reluctant to prescribe IVT or EVT in patients on DAPT. Other factors favouring the decision not to provide IVT or EVT may have been present, such as additional comorbidities, such as recent myocardial infarctions that are treated with DAPT. This could have hidden consequences for patients on DAPT, although the European Stroke Organisation international guidelines from 2021 recommend IVT in both SAPT and DAPT.40
Strengths and weaknesses
The strengths of this analysis were that the data in the SSR did not contain a selection bias for inclusion in the registry and that the data were collected prospectively for quality control. This resulted in a large dataset from different centres over several years, with high validity. The analysis was performed for three patient groups (DAPT, SAPT, and nAPT) and adjusted for revascularisation treatment.
As the dataset was collected prospectively in a predefined manner, the study team did not influence the selection of the collected parameters, which could be a limitation of the study. The variables were defined at the beginning of the 2010s decade. All new findings and questions gained since then and the resulting variables of interest were not included in the database. This includes the duration of previous medication intake and adherence to treatment. While the pharmacological effects of platelet aggregation inhibitors suggest a rapid onset of action, the lack of detailed information on treatment duration and adherence introduces uncertainty. Therefore, the assumption of the equivalence of short- and long-term exposure should be made with caution. In addition, the following were not recorded: the burden of white matter disease, the size of the infarct, the NIHSS scores for recurrent IS and sICH, and medications taken at hospital discharge and 90-day follow-up. Only the active compound was recorded for the drug intake. This means that information on dosage, duration, and adherence of antithrombotic and anticoagulant therapy before stroke onset, treatment after initial stroke such as oral anticoagulants and APT not available. Therefore, the effect of secondary prevention with oral anticoagulants on the risk of sICH after the index event could not be analysed. However, considering the very early occurrence of sICH, no effect of oral anticoagulants is assumed.
The inclusion of all symptomatic ICH up to 90 days probably mixed two different entities: haemorrhagic transformation of acute infarct tissue, probably related to revascularisation treatment during hospitalisation, and intraparenchymal haemorrhage, some also outside the infarcted brain tissue, during the 90-day follow-up.
Another limitation is that the DAPT group was smaller than the other groups. Therefore, the power to detect differences in that group might be limited. It is important to acknowledge the limitation that the causal interpretation relies on several key assumptions. Specifically, the validity of the causal model specification and positivity assumption must be ensured. The latter assumption stipulates that there are sufficient numbers of SAPT, nAPT, and DAPT patients in all combinations of covariates. Further assumptions are necessary to ensure the validity of the mediation analyses. Although the temporal sequence—exposure (SAPT, nAPT, DAPT prior to the qualifying event), mediator (acute treatment), and clinical outcome at 90 days—is clearly established, a causal interpretation of the results also requires proper control of confounding factors. Directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) were used to identify potential confounders, and all associations of interest (exposure–outcome, mediator–outcome, and exposure–mediator) were adjusted for relevant covariates. However, the validity of the findings ultimately depends on the completeness and adequacy of the selected covariates.
Conclusion
Our findings suggest that, regardless of revascularisation treatment, patients with SAPT may have an increased risk of sICH compared to those with nAPT. Patients with DAPT may have an increased risk of recurrent IS and a worse functional outcome than those with SAPT. The majority of sICH occurred within the first few days after admission. Further patients on DAPT are less often given revascularisation treatments.
Supplementary Material
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
The ethics committee of Nordwest- und Zentralschweiz approved this study (REC number: 2022-02045).
Informed consent
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient(s) for their anonymised information to be published in this article.
Guarantor
PL.
Contributorship
LN, DMGM and PL researched literature and conceived the study, they were involved in protocol development and gaining ethical approval. SS did the data analysis. NL wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors were involved in data acquisition, approved the protocol, reviewed the manuscript, and approved the final version of the manuscript.
ORCID iDs
Lukas Nussbaum 
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8147-7286
Leo Bonati https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1163-8133
David J Seiffge https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3890-3849
Stefan Engelter https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3855-6234
Alexandros A Polymeris https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9475-2208
Timo Kahles https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1569-6376
Alexander Salerno https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8494-5527
Susanne Wegener https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4369-7023
Carlo Cereda https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6479-1476
Manuel Bolognese https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4757-2834
Friedrich Medlin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8477-899X
Nils Peters https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8451-7389
Maria Ligon https://orcid.org/0009-0006-8073-4099
Alexander Tarnutzer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6984-6958
Gian Marco De Marchis https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0342-9780
Data availability statement
The data for this study are from the Swiss Stroke Registry. According to the regulations of the Swiss Stroke Registry Steering Committee, the data is available only on reasoned request. For more information see: https://www.neurovasc.ch/portrait/komitees/swiss-stroke-registry
Contributor Information
Lukas Nussbaum, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sabine Schaedelin, Department of Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Unit, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Leo Bonati, Reha Rheinfelden, Rheinfelden and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Marcel Arnold, Department of Neurology, Inselspital University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
David J Seiffge, Department of Neurology, Inselspital University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Martina Goeldlin, Department of Neurology, Inselspital University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefan Engelter, Department of Geriatric Medicine Felix Platter, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Alexandros A Polymeris, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Timo Kahles, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Krassen Nedeltchev, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, Cantonal Hospital Aarau, Aarau and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Georg Kägi, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, Sankt Gallen, Switzerland.
Davide Strambo, Department of Neurology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Alexander Salerno, Department of Neurology, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Emmanuel Carrera, Department of Neurology, Hôpitaux Universitaires Genève, Geneve, Switzerland.
Susanne Wegener, Department of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Carlo Cereda, Stroke Center EOC, Ospedale Regionale di Lugano, Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland.
Manuel Bolognese, Department of Neurology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Lehel-Barna Lakatos, Department of Neurology, Luzerner Kantonsspital, Luzern, Switzerland.
Andrea Humm, Stroke Unit and Division of Neurology, HFR Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Friedrich Medlin, Stroke Unit and Division of Neurology, HFR Fribourg Cantonal Hospital, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Nils Peters, Stroke Center, Klinik Hirslanden, Stroke Center, Zurich and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Dennis Thumm, Stroke Center, Klinik Hirslanden, Stroke Center, Zurich and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sylvan Albert, Department of Neurology, Kantonsspital Chur, Chur, Switzerland.
Maria Ligon, Department of Neurology, Kantonsspital Chur, Chur, Switzerland.
Christian Berger, Stroke Unit, Cantonal Hospital Grabs, Grabs Switzerland.
Marie-Luise Mono, Department of Neurology, Stadtspital Zurich Triemli, Zurich, Switzerland.
Susanne Renaud, Stroke Unit and Division of Neurology, Network Hospital Neuchâtel, Neuchatel, Switzerland.
Julien Niederhauser, Stroke Unit, Hopital de Nyon, Nyon, Switzerland.
Alexander Tarnutzer, Department of Neurology, Kantonsspital Baden, Baden and University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Nicole Bruni, Department of Clinical Research, Clinical Trial Unit, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Mira Katan, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Gian Marco De Marchis, Department of Neurology and Stroke Center, Cantonal Hospital St Gallen, St. Gallen and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Philippe Lyrer, Department of Neurology and Stroke Centre, University Hospital Basel and University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
References
- 1. Lindley RI, Wardlaw JM, Whiteley WN, et al. Alteplase for acute ischemic stroke: outcomes by clinically important subgroups in the third international stroke trial. Stroke 2015; 46: 746–756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Robinson TG, Wang X, Arima H, et al. Low- versus standard-dose alteplase in patients on prior antiplatelet therapy: the ENCHANTED Trial (Enhanced Control of hypertension and thrombolysis stroke study). Stroke 2017; 48: 1877–1883. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Schellinger PD, Tsivgoulis G. Another enchantment from ENCHANTED (Enhanced control of hypertension and thrombolysis stroke study): are savings and safety more salutary than efficacy? Stroke 2017; 48: 1720–1722. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Frank B, Grotta JC, Alexandrov AV, et al. Thrombolysis in stroke despite contraindications or warnings? Stroke 2013; 44: 727–733. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Cucchiara B, Kasner SE, Tanne D, et al. Factors associated with intracerebral hemorrhage after thrombolytic therapy for ischemic stroke: pooled analysis of placebo data from the stroke-acute ischemic NXY treatment (SAINT) I and SAINT II Trials. Stroke 2009; 40: 3067–3072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Mulder MJ, Berkhemer OA, Fransen PS, et al. Does prior antiplatelet treatment improve functional outcome after intra-arterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke? Int J Stroke 2017; 12: 368–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Pandhi A, Tsivgoulis G, Krishnan R, et al. Antiplatelet pretreatment and outcomes following mechanical thrombectomy for emergent large vessel occlusion strokes. J Neurointerv Surg 2018; 10: 828–833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Merlino G, Sponza M, Gigli GL, et al. Prior use of antiplatelet therapy and outcomes after endovascular therapy in acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion: a single-Center Experience. J Clin Med 2018; 7: 518. DOI: 10.3390/jcm7120518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. van de Graaf RA, Zinkstok SM, Chalos V, et al. Prior antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing endovascular treatment for acute ischemic stroke: results from the MR CLEAN Registry. Int J Stroke 2021; 16: 476–485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Malhotra K, Katsanos AH, Goyal N, et al. Safety and efficacy of dual antiplatelet pretreatment in patients with ischemic stroke treated with IV thrombolysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol 2020; 94: e657–e666. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Altersberger VL, Sturzenegger R, Räty S, et al. Prior dual antiplatelet therapy and thrombolysis in acute stroke. Ann Neurol 2020; 88: 857–859. DOI: 10.1002/ana.25850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Tsivgoulis G, Katsanos AH, Mavridis D, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis for ischemic stroke patients on dual antiplatelets. Ann Neurol 2018; 84: 89–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Tsivgoulis G, Katsanos AH, Zand R, et al. Antiplatelet pretreatment and outcomes in intravenous thrombolysis for stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol 2017; 264: 1227–1235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Mowla A, Sharifian-Dorche M, Mehla S, et al. Safety and efficacy of antiplatelet use before intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke. J Neurol Sci 2021; 425: 117451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. De Matteis E, De Santis F, Ornello R, et al. Divergence between clinical trial evidence and actual practice in use of dual antiplatelet therapy after transient ischemic attack and minor stroke. Stroke 2023; 54: 1172–1181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhao X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in acute minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. N Engl J Med 2013; 369: 11–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Johnston SC, Easton JD, Farrant M, et al. Clopidogrel and aspirin in acute ischemic stroke and high-risk TIA. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 215–225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Gao Y, Chen W, Pan Y, et al. Dual antiplatelet treatment up to 72 hours after ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 2023; 389: 2413–2424. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Altersberger VL, Wright PR, Schaedelin SA, et al. Effect of admission time on provision of acute stroke treatment at stroke units and stroke centers-an analysis of the Swiss Stroke Registry. Eur Stroke J 2022; 7: 117–125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Dittrich TD, Sporns PB, Kriemler LF, et al. Mechanical thrombectomy for large vessel occlusion between 6 and 24 h: outcome comparison of DEFUSE-3/DAWN eligible versus non-eligible patients. Int J Stroke 2023; 18: 697–703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Fischer U, Branca M, Bonati LH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography for suspected acute stroke: association of admission image modality with acute recanalization therapies, workflow metrics, and outcomes. Ann Neurol 2022; 92: 184–194. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Goeldlin MB, Mueller A, Siepen BM, et al. Etiology, 3-Month functional outcome and recurrent events in non-traumatic intracerebral hemorrhage. J Stroke 2022; 24: 266–277. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 1495–1499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. von Kummer R, Broderick JP, Campbell BC, et al. The Heidelberg bleeding classification: classification of bleeding events after ischemic stroke and reperfusion therapy. Stroke 2015; 46: 2981–2986. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Textor J, van der Zander B, Gilthorpe MS, et al. Robust causal inference using directed acyclic graphs: the R package ‘dagitty. Int J Epidemiol 2016; 45: 1887–1894. DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyw341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Fluri F, Hatz F, Voss B, et al. Restenosis after carotid endarterectomy: significance of newly acquired risk factors. Eur J Neurol 2010; 17: 493–498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Ho DE, Imai K, King G, et al. MatchIt: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. J Stat Softw 2011; 42: 1–28. Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v042.i08. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51: 1173–1182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. MacKinnon DP. Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, 2008. Epub ahead of print 1 January 2008. DOI: 10.4324/9780203809556. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations. in R. J Stat Softw 45: 1–67. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v045.i03 [Google Scholar]
- 31. Churilov L, Hayward K, Yogendrakumar V, et al. Conducting descriptive epidemiology and causal inference studies using observational data: a 10-point primer for stroke researchers. Eur Stroke J 2025; 10: 307–329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Wasserstein RL, Schirm AL, Lazar NA. Moving to a world beyond “ p < 0.05”. Am Stat 2019; 73: 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- 33. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 34. Pan X, Zhu Y, Zheng D, et al. Prior antiplatelet agent use and outcomes after intravenous thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. Int J Stroke 2015; 10: 317–323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Luo S, Zhuang M, Zeng W, et al. Intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke in patients receiving antiplatelet therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 Studies. J Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5: e003242. Epub ahead of print 1 January 2016. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Naeem A, Kelani H, Salamah HM, et al. Impact of prior antiplatelet therapy on safety and efficacy of alteplase in acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurol Sci 2025; 46: 2461–2478. DOI: 10.1007/s10072-025-08024-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Wu H, Qian J, Shen W, et al. Impact of prior antiplatelet therapy on outcomes of acute ischemic stroke undergoing endovascular treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Neurosci 2024; 119: 22–29. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Sylaja PN, Nair SS, Pandian J, et al. Impact of pre-stroke antiplatelet use on 3-month outcome after ischemic stroke. Neurol India 2021; 69: 1645–1649. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Silimon N, Drop B, Clénin L, et al. Ischaemic stroke despite antiplatelet therapy: causes and outcomes. Eur Stroke J 2023; 8: 692–702. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Berge E, Whiteley W, Audebert H, et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines on intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. Eur Stroke J 2021; 6: I–LXII. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The data for this study are from the Swiss Stroke Registry. According to the regulations of the Swiss Stroke Registry Steering Committee, the data is available only on reasoned request. For more information see: https://www.neurovasc.ch/portrait/komitees/swiss-stroke-registry