Rivaroxaban vs Warfarin Sodium in the Ultra-Early Period After Atrial Fibrillation-Related Mild Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In atrial fibrillation (AF)-related acute ischemic stroke, the optimal oral anticoagulation strategy remains unclear. Objective: To test whether rivaroxaban or warfarin sodium is safer and more effective for preventing early recurrent stroke in patients with AF-related acute ischemic stroke. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, multicenter, open-label, blinded end point evaluation, comparative phase 2 trial was conducted from April 28, 2014, to December 7, 2015, at 14 academic medical centers in South Korea among patients with mild AF-related stroke within the previous 5 days who were deemed suitable for early anticoagulation. Analysis was performed on a modified intent-to-treat basis. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive rivaroxaban, 10 mg/d for 5 days followed by 15 or 20 mg/d, or warfarin with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0-3.0, for 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of new ischemic lesion or new intracranial hemorrhage seen on results of magnetic resonance imaging at 4 weeks. Primary analysis was performed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study medications and completed follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Key secondary end points were individual components of the primary end point and hospitalization length. Results: Of 195 patients randomized, 183 individuals (76 women and 107 men; mean [SD] age, 70.4 [10.4] years) completed magnetic resonance imaging follow-up and were included in the primary end point analysis. The rivaroxaban group (n = 95) and warfarin group (n = 88) showed no differences in the primary end point (47 [49.5%] vs 48 [54.5%]; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.69-1.20; P = .49) or its individual components (new ischemic lesion: 28 [29.5%] vs 31 of 87 [35.6%]; relative risk, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.54-1.26; P = .38; new intracranial hemorrhage: 30 [31.6%] vs 25 of 87 [28.7%]; relative risk, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.70-1.71; P = .68). Each group had 1 clinical ischemic stroke, and all new intracranial hemorrhages were asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations. Hospitalization length was reduced with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin (median, 4.0 days [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0 days] vs 6.0 days [interquartile range, 4.0-8.0]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In mild AF-related acute ischemic stroke, rivaroxaban and warfarin had comparable safety and efficacy. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02042534.

Characteristics of the Drip-and-Ship Paradigm for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: Data on the drip-and-ship paradigm in Korea are limited. The present study aimed to evaluate the use of the drip-and-ship paradigm and the time delays and outcomes associated with the paradigm in Korea. METHODS: We used data from the Clinical Research Center for Stroke-5 registry between January 2011 and March 2014. Among patients treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA), the use of the drip-and-ship paradigm was evaluated, and time delays and functional outcomes at 3 months were compared between patients treated with the paradigm and those treated directly at visits. RESULTS: Among 1843 patients who met the eligibility criteria, 244 patients (13.2%) were treated with the drip-and-ship paradigm. Subsequent endovascular recanalization therapy was used in 509 patients (27.6%). The median time from symptom onset to groin puncture was greater in patients treated with the paradigm than in those treated directly at visits (305 versus 200 minutes, P < .001). In multivariate analysis, the risks of unfavorable functional outcomes and symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage were higher inpatients treated with the paradigm than in those directly treated at visits (odds ratio [OR] 2.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.50-3.08; P < .001 and OR 1.78; 95% CI, 1.02-3.12; P = .041, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In Korea, the drip-and-ship paradigm was used in less than 15% of all patients treated with tPA. The use of the paradigm might cause an increase in the onset-to-groin puncture time. Additionally, clinical outcomes might be worse in patients treated with the paradigm than in those treated directly at visits.