RESUMO
@#Marfan’s syndrome is a systemic disorder of connective tissue typically involving cardiovascular, musculoskeletal and ocular systems. Given the relative rarity of neurovascular complications in Marfan’s syndrome, there is currently little published data on the use of thrombolysis in patients with Marfan’s syndrome and acute ischaemic stroke. Of concern is the possibility of underlying cerebral artery dissection in patients with Marfan’s syndrome presenting with stroke and the risk of haemorrhagic complications with thrombolysis. We report the third known case of a patient with Marfan’s syndrome with an acute ischaemic stroke without evidence of cerebral artery dissection who received thrombolysis successfully with neurological improvement. A 47-year-old woman with a history of Marfan’s syndrome and previous left middle cerebral artery (MCA) territory infarct presented to our emergency department with sudden onset of right facial, arm and leg weakness with a NIHSS score of 15 and clinical examination findings of a right upper motor neurone facial palsy and right hemiparesis. CT brain revealed a dense right MCA sign and no evidence of haemorrhage. She received 0.9mg/kg of alteplase without complications. There was a suspicion for cerebral artery dissection but this was not evident on both CT angiography and MRI angiogram with black blood sequences. She recovered well with a NIHSS score of 1 and mild residual dysphasia. This case demonstrates that thrombolysis may be given safely in a patient with Marfan’s syndrome and acute ischaemic stroke and exclusion of underlying cerebral artery dissection should always be a consideration.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) expand the treatment options for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Their benefits need to be weighed against the risk-benefit ratio in real-world elderly patients, prompting this cost-effectiveness study of NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban), warfarin and aspirin for stroke prevention in AF. METHODS: Applying effectiveness estimates from a network meta-analysis involving over 800,000 patients from randomised controlled trials and observation studies, our Markov model projected cost and health outcomes for a cohort of 65-year-old AF patients over a life-time. We performed subgroup analysis stratified by age (65-74 and ≥75years), with further analysis limited to observational studies involving dabigatran and rivaroxaban. RESULTS: Compared to warfarin, NOACs (except dabigatran 110) were associated with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from USD 24,476 to USD 41,448 that were within cost-effectiveness threshold of USD 49,700 (one gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2015). Aspirin regimens were dominated. In elderly aged ≥75years, cost effectiveness of NOACs (except apixaban) decreased, owing to worsened performance in safety profile. Analysis limited to observational studies revealed that dabigatran 150 and rivaroxaban were not cost-effective, reflecting increased bleeding risks in non-controlled settings. Threshold analyses revealed that apixaban was no longer cost-effective at two to three times higher bleeding risk. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst NOACs are cost-effective in the younger elderly compared to warfarin, their benefits appear to be offset by worsened risk profile in older elderly, especially in non-controlled settings. Decisions on appropriate AF treatment should balance treatment-related benefits, risks, and patient preference.
