Tips from Other Journals

From Other Journals

Warfarin vs. Aspirin for Nonembolic Stroke Prevention


Am Fam Physician. 2002 Mar 15;65(6):1184.

While use of warfarin for prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation has become more widely accepted, its role has not been as clear in the much larger group of stroke patients who do not have atrial fibrillation or other embolic risk sources. A previous trial of warfarin anticoagulation for stroke prevention, in which the target International Normalized Ratio (INR) was 3.0 to 4.5, was stopped early when it showed higher rates of major hemorrhage.

Mohr and associates describe a large trial comparing aspirin with warfarin anticoagulation, with a lower INR target of 1.4 to 2.8. In a double-blind, randomized trial, 2,206 patients with nonembolic stroke were assigned to receive aspirin in a dosage of 325 mg once daily, or warfarin. To best preserve blinding, patients randomized to aspirin had fake INR values reported that were adjusted as needed. Patients were followed for two years, comparing rates of recurrent stroke, death from any cause, and bleeding complications. Fewer than 2 percent of study participants in both groups were lost to follow-up.

Recurrent stroke or death occurred in 17.8 percent of patients taking warfarin versus 16.0 percent of those taking aspirin, a difference that was not statistically significant. In addition, there were no differences in subgroups based on gender, race, or cause of previous stroke. Minor bleeding was more common with warfarin than with aspirin (20.8 vs. 12.9 percent), but major bleeding rates were low and similar (2.2 vs. 1.5 percent).

The authors conclude that warfarin anticoagulation with a target INR of 1.4 to 2.8 provided no advantage over aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke.

Mohr JP, et al. A comparison of warfarin and aspirin for the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med. November 15, 2001;345:1444–51.

editor's note: Many medical journals are biased toward the reporting of positive results (i.e., treatment X is better than treatment Y, or treatment Z is deadly for these reasons). Negative results (i.e., no difference) seldom receive much press attention, yet are just as important in making rational clinical decisions. While this study is not likely to make headlines, the findings are no less relevant to any patient or physician trying to make an informed decision about medications for recurrent stroke prevention.—b.z.



Copyright © 2002 by the American Academy of Family Physicians.
This content is owned by the AAFP. A person viewing it online may make one printout of the material and may use that printout only for his or her personal, non-commercial reference. This material may not otherwise be downloaded, copied, printed, stored, transmitted or reproduced in any medium, whether now known or later invented, except as authorized in writing by the AAFP. Contact for copyright questions and/or permission requests.

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


May 2022

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue

Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article