Image: PD
1. The combination of aspirin and dipyridamole was superior to aspirin alone in the secondary prevention of major vascular events
2. Patients on combination therapy were more likely to discontinue trial medication due to adverse effects
Original Date of Publication: May 20, 2006
Study Rundown: Daily aspirin as a secondary preventive measure has been shown to reduce the risk of vascular events in patients with a history of transient ischemic attack. There is, however, uncertainty as to whether dipyridamole in combination with aspirin has any additional benefit. The European/Australasian Stroke Prevention in Reversible Ischaemia (ESPRIT) trial is a large, multi-centre randomized controlled trial of aspirin with dipyridamole versus aspirin alone following cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin. When the results of this trial were included in a meta-analysis of combination therapy versus aspirin alone, a clear benefit was demonstrated in prevention of vascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.98). A potential limitation of the study is its non-blinded design; however, outcomes were verified by an auditing committee that was unaware of treatment assignment.
In summary, the findings of the ESPRIT trial suggest that patients should be prescribed both aspirin and dipyridamole following cerebral ischemia of arterial origin.
Please click to read study in The Lancet
EvidencePulse
How does ESPRIT apply to your patient?
Describe your patient and EvidencePulse weighs this trial against later evidence and current guidelines, with citations.
For a fuller review of the evidence, Deep research is a core feature of 2MM Max.
In-Depth [randomized, controlled study]: Published in the Lancet in 2006, this randomized controlled trial assigned 2,739 patients with a history of a transient ischemic attack within the past 6 months to receive a combination of aspirin and dipyridamole or aspirin alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from all vascular causes, non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction or major bleeding complication. Of the patients assigned to the combination treatment, 470 (34%) discontinued the trial medication largely due to adverse effects, while 184 (13%) of the patients assigned to aspirin alone discontinued their medication. The primary outcome occurred in 173 (13%) patients assigned to combination therapy versus 216 (16%) of those assigned to aspirin alone (HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.66-0.98). The investigators updated a previously conducted meta-analysis with the addition of these results and found an overall risk ratio of 0.82 (95%CI 0.74-0.91) for the composite outcome of vascular death, non-fatal stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction.
By Adrienne Cheung and Andrew Cheung, M.D.
Trials since this one
What later trials found on the same question.
- 2007
TRITON In The Classics
Prasugrel was more effective than clopidogrel in reducing the incidence of recurrent myocardial infarction in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome, though there was no difference in mortality between the two…
- 2009
PLATO In The Classics
Treatment with ticagrelor significantly reduces mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome when compared to clopidogrel.
6 more since 2006
2MM+ See every trial since ESPRIT
2MM+ shows the full timeline of later trials on this question, with what each one found, and lets you save trials to reading lists for rounds, journal club and boards.
Citation: Halkes PH, van Gijn J, Kappelle LJ, Koudstaal PJ, Algra A; ESPRIT Study Group. Aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin alone after cerebral ischaemia of arterial origin (ESPRIT): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2006 May 20;367(9523):1665-73. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68734-5. PMID: 16714187.
© 2013 2 Minute Medicine, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of 2 Minute Medicine, Inc. To license this content, contact 2 Minute Medicine, Inc. This article is for informational and educational purposes only; it is not medical advice and does not replace the judgment of a qualified healthcare professional.
Image: PD