BACKGROUND: Argatroban is a thrombin inhibitor agent for acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke in Japan. We studied the prognosis in patients with acute stroke treated by argatroban in comparison with the control group with ozagrel in our hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 513 patients with acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke were enrolled retrospectively from our hospital database. Of all patients with stroke, 353 were administered with argatroban. The other 160 control patients were administered with ozagrel. The patients were examined as to their stroke types, the neurological severity according to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and clinical outcomes on discharge were determined according to the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). RESULTS: A total of 353 patients with acute noncardioembolic stroke, including 138 with lacunar infarction (LIs) and 215 with atherothrombotic infarction (ATI) showed functional recovery by argatroban, but the effectiveness of argatroban was not superior to ozagrel therapy defined by the control group. A total of 255 patients with ATI who were treated with both argatroban and ozagrel showed improvement by 1 point. We could not find any significant difference between argatroban and ozagrel in the 2 stroke subtypes, LI and ATI. We also found that combination therapy of argatroban and edaravone was not superior to argatroban monotherapy in clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Argatroban therapy was not superior to control with ozagrel therapy in acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, including LI and ATI, regardless of the use of edaravone.
BACKGROUND:Argatroban is a thrombin inhibitor agent for acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke in Japan. We studied the prognosis in patients with acute stroke treated by argatroban in comparison with the control group with ozagrel in our hospital. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 513 patients with acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke were enrolled retrospectively from our hospital database. Of all patients with stroke, 353 were administered with argatroban. The other 160 control patients were administered with ozagrel. The patients were examined as to their stroke types, the neurological severity according to the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and clinical outcomes on discharge were determined according to the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). RESULTS: A total of 353 patients with acute noncardioembolic stroke, including 138 with lacunar infarction (LIs) and 215 with atherothrombotic infarction (ATI) showed functional recovery by argatroban, but the effectiveness of argatroban was not superior to ozagrel therapy defined by the control group. A total of 255 patients with ATI who were treated with both argatroban and ozagrel showed improvement by 1 point. We could not find any significant difference between argatroban and ozagrel in the 2 stroke subtypes, LI and ATI. We also found that combination therapy of argatroban and edaravone was not superior to argatroban monotherapy in clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Argatroban therapy was not superior to control with ozagrel therapy in acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, including LI and ATI, regardless of the use of edaravone.