Intensity of statin therapy after ischaemic stroke and long-term outcomes: A nationwide cohort study

11Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Statins are essential for secondary prevention after ischaemic stroke (IS). However, statin intensity recommendations differ, and there is a concern about intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH). We studied the long-term impacts of initial statin intensity following IS. Methods Consecutive patients using high-intensity, moderate-intensity or low-intensity statin early after IS (n=45 512) were retrospectively studied using national registries in Finland. Differences were adjusted using multivariable regression. The primary outcome was all-cause death within 12-year follow-up (median 5.9 years). Secondary outcomes were recurrent IS, cardiovascular death and ICH studied using competing risk analyses. Results High-intensity therapy was initially used by 16.0%, moderate-intensity by 73.8% and low-intensity by 10.2%. Risk of death was lower with high-intensity versus moderate-intensity (adjusted HR (adj.HR) 0.92; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97; number needed to treat (NNT) 32.0), with moderate-intensity versus low-intensity (adj.HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95; NNT 27.5) and with high-intensity versus low-intensity (adj.HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.89; NNT 14.6) statin. There was a dose-dependent association of initial statin intensity with a lower probability of recurrent IS (p<0.0001) and cardiovascular death (p<0.0001). The occurrence of ICH was not associated with initial statin intensity (p=0.646). Conclusions Following IS, more intense initial statin treatment is associated with improved long-term outcomes but not with the risk of ICH. These findings emphasise the importance of high statin intensity shortly after IS.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kytö, V., Åivo, J., & Ruuskanen, J. O. (2025). Intensity of statin therapy after ischaemic stroke and long-term outcomes: A nationwide cohort study. Stroke and Vascular Neurology, 10(1), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1136/svn-2024-003230

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free