Dataset Information

Statins and clinical outcome of acute ischemic stroke: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Statin therapy is considered an effective measure for the prevention of ischemic stroke. Several recent studies have indicated that treatment with statins, prior to the onset of acute ischemic stroke, may also substantially reduce the severity of stroke and the degree of patient disability. The purpose of the present review is to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of statin pretreatment on functional outcome of acute ischemic stroke and to assess potential adverse events associated with statin use.

Methods

Relevant articles on the role of statins in acute ischemic stroke were identified via MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and by manual searches of the references of identified papers. Clinical studies (most were prospective cohort studies) assessing statin therapy for acute ischemic stroke were selected for the review. Only two randomized controlled clinical trials met the criteria to be included in the analysis. Clinical outcome was assessed based on the degree of disability determined with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Barthel index (BI). The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used to measure stroke severity. Recurrence of stroke in patients who had suffered from a previous stroke was analyzed with and without statin therapy. Incidence and severity of adverse reactions was reviewed. Because there were too many differences in study outcome measures, a quantitative analysis of data was deemed inappropriate. A qualitative summary of the data was consequently completed.

Results

Thirteen reports were systematically reviewed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of statins in the pretreatment of acute ischemic stroke. Pretreatment with statins was found to reduce the recurrence of stroke and to result in more favorable outcomes for patients. The beneficial effects of prior statin therapy in acute ischemic stroke were shown to be especially profound in whites, diabetics, elderly patients with hypertension and other vascular diseases, and in patients with ideal low density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. There were few incidences of adverse reactions with statin pretreatment, most of which were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Pretreatment with statins was associated with a favorable outcome in acute ischemic stroke, with few incidences of adverse reactions.

SUBMITTER: Lakhan SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2954982 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLow-to-moderate dose statins (LMDSs) are more commonly used among Asian acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients in clinical practice. However, the correlation between the LMDS use and prognosis has not been evaluated in AIS patients with conventional medication treatment alone. This study aimed to investigate the influence of LMDS on the prognosis of AIS patients and how prognosis and potential prognostic factors interact with different statin doses.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study included AIS patients who were admitted within 7 days after symptom onset and received conventional medication treatment alone from November 2019 to November 2020 in the Neurology, Department of West China Hospital, Sichuan University. From a total of 782 initial patients, a final cohort of 327 patients was included in the study. These patients were divided into three groups based on statin doses: non-statin (48 patients), LMDS (152 patients), and high-dose statin (HDS) (127 patients). The follow-up period was 3 months after the onset of stroke and the primary outcome was defined as a modified Rankin scale (mRS) score of 0 to 2 at 3 months, secondary outcomes were hemorrhagic transformation (HT) and death within 3 months. Stratified analysis was also conducted to test the robustness of the relationship between the use of different statin doses and functional outcomes in various subgroups.ResultsCompared with non-statin therapy, both LMDS therapy and HDS therapy were associated with good functional outcomes [odds ratio (OR) =3.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-12.01, P=0.0309; OR =3.45, 95% CI: 1.06-11.26, P=0.0402, respectively] and a lower risk of HT (OR =0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.86, P=0.0253; OR =0.36, 95% CI: 0.13-0.99, P=0.0488, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause death within 3 months among the three groups (OR =0.84, 95% CI: 0.29-2.46, P=0.7468; OR =0.76, 95% CI: 0.26-2.22, P=0.6104). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between LMDS therapy and HDS therapy regarding good functional outcomes at 3 months (OR =0.94, 95% CI: 0.50-1.77, P=0.8411) and the occurrence of HT (OR =1.19, 95% CI: 0.47-3.02, P=0.7093). The results of the relationship between different statin doses and 3-month good functional outcome were consistent after interaction tests.ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence for the benefit and safety of LMDS therapy in AIS patients with medication treatment alone. LMDS therapy is associated with favorable impacts on 3-month functional outcomes and a reduced risk of HT compared to non-statin therapy. There were no significant differences in achieving 3-month good functional outcome, the risk of HT or death within 3 months were observed between LMDS and HDS therapy in our study. Further studies with prospective design and larger sample sizes are necessary to validate our results.

Project description:Statins, in addition to their lipid-lowering properties, have anti-inflammatory actions. The aim of this review is to evaluate the effect of pre-injury statin use, and statin treatment following injury. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched to January 2012 for randomised and observational studies of statins in trauma patients in general, and in patients who have suffered traumatic brain injury, burns, and fractures. Of 985 identified citations, 7 (4 observational studies and 3 randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) met the inclusion criteria. Two studies (both observational) were concerned with trauma patients in general, two with patients who had suffered traumatic brain injury (one observational, one RCT), two with burns patients (one observational, one RCT), and one with fracture healing (RCT). Two of the RCTs relied on surrogate outcome measures. The observational studies were deemed to be at high risk of confounding, and the RCTs at high risk of bias. Three of the observational studies suggested improvements in a number of clinical outcomes in patients taking statins prior to injury (mortality, infection, and septic shock in burns patients; mortality in trauma patients in general; mortality in brain injured patients) whereas one, also of trauma patients in general, showed no difference in mortality or infection, and an increased risk of multi-organ failure. Two of three RCTs on statin treatment in burns patients and brain injured patients showed improvements in E-selectin levels and cognitive function. The third, of patients with radial fractures, showed no acceleration in fracture union. In conclusion, there is some evidence that pre-injury statin use and post-injury statin treatment may have a beneficial effect in patients who have suffered general trauma, traumatic brain injury, and burns. However, these studies are at high risk of confounding and bias, and should be regarded as 'hypothesisgenerating'. A well-designed RCT is required to determine the therapeutic efficacy in improving outcomes in this patient population.