Benjamin T King1, Patrick D Lawrence1, Truman J Milling1,2,3, Steven J Warach1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of Texas Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA. 2. Seton Healthcare Family, Austin, TX, USA. 3. Department of Surgery and Perioperative Care, University of Texas Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: An estimated 15% of all strokes are associated with untreated atrial fibrillation. Long-term secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is anticoagulation, increasingly with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. The optimal time to initiate anticoagulation following an atrial fibrillation-related stroke that balances hemorrhagic conversion with recurrent stroke is not yet known. AIMS: To determine if there is an optimal delay time to initiate anticoagulation after atrial fibrillation-related stroke that optimizes the composite outcome of hemorrhagic conversion and recurrent ischemic stroke. SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATES: The study will enroll 1500 total subjects split between a mild to moderate stroke cohort (1000) and a severe stroke cohort (500). METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a multi-center, prospective, randomized, pragmatic, adaptive trial that randomizes subjects to four arms of time to start of anticoagulation. The four arms for mild to moderate stroke are: Day 3, Day 6, Day 10, and Day 14. The time intervals for severe stroke are: Day 6, Day 10, Day 14, and Day 21. Allocation involves a response adaptive randomization via interim analyses to favor the arms that have a better risk-benefit profile. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome event is the composite occurrence of an ischemic or hemorrhagic event within 30 days of the index stroke. Secondary outcomes are also collected at 30 and 90 days. DISCUSSION: The optimal timing of direct oral anticoagulants post-ischemic stroke requires prospective randomized testing. A pragmatically designed trial with adaptive allocation and randomization to multiple time intervals such as the START trial is best suited to answer this question in order to directly inform current practice on this question.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: An estimated 15% of all strokes are associated with untreated atrial fibrillation. Long-term secondary stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is anticoagulation, increasingly with non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. The optimal time to initiate anticoagulation following an atrial fibrillation-related stroke that balances hemorrhagic conversion with recurrent stroke is not yet known. AIMS: To determine if there is an optimal delay time to initiate anticoagulation after atrial fibrillation-related stroke that optimizes the composite outcome of hemorrhagic conversion and recurrent ischemic stroke. SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATES: The study will enroll 1500 total subjects split between a mild to moderate stroke cohort (1000) and a severe stroke cohort (500). METHODS AND DESIGN: This study is a multi-center, prospective, randomized, pragmatic, adaptive trial that randomizes subjects to four arms of time to start of anticoagulation. The four arms for mild to moderate stroke are: Day 3, Day 6, Day 10, and Day 14. The time intervals for severe stroke are: Day 6, Day 10, Day 14, and Day 21. Allocation involves a response adaptive randomization via interim analyses to favor the arms that have a better risk-benefit profile. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome event is the composite occurrence of an ischemic or hemorrhagic event within 30 days of the index stroke. Secondary outcomes are also collected at 30 and 90 days. DISCUSSION: The optimal timing of direct oral anticoagulants post-ischemic stroke requires prospective randomized testing. A pragmatically designed trial with adaptive allocation and randomization to multiple time intervals such as the START trial is best suited to answer this question in order to directly inform current practice on this question.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Joshua Z Willey; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Walter N Kernan; Bruce Ovbiagele; Henry R Black; Dawn M Bravata; Marc I Chimowitz; Michael D Ezekowitz; Margaret C Fang; Marc Fisher; Karen L Furie; Donald V Heck; S Claiborne Clay Johnston; Scott E Kasner; Steven J Kittner; Pamela H Mitchell; Michael W Rich; DeJuran Richardson; Lee H Schwamm; John A Wilson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David J Seiffge; Christopher Traenka; Alexandros Polymeris; Lisa Hert; Nils Peters; Philippe Lyrer; Stefan T Engelter; Leo H Bonati; Gian Marco De Marchis Journal: Neurology Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Ferdinand Bohmann; Ana Mirceska; Josef Pfeilschifter; Edelgard Lindhoff-Last; Helmuth Steinmetz; Christian Foerch; Waltraud Pfeilschifter Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gerrit M Grosse; Christian Weimar; Nils Kuklik; Anika Hüsing; Andreas Stang; Marcus Brinkmann; Christoph C Eschenfelder; Hans-Christoph Diener Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2021-11-17