Cited by 31Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and ManagementVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementCardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications

Modifiers of Symptomatic Embolic Risk in Infective Endocarditis

Open access
Anavekar, Nandan S., Schultz, Jason C., De Sa, Daniel D. Correa, Thomas, Justin M., Lahr, Brian D., Tleyjeh, Imad M., Steckelberg, James M., Wilson, Walter R. +1 more·2011·Mayo Clinic Proceedings

Abstract

Objective To ascertain the impact of prior antiplatelet and statin therapy on symptomatic embolic events in [corrected] infective endocarditis (IE).Patients and methods We studied a retrospective cohort of adult patients with a diagnosis of IE who presented to Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN) from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2006. Patients were grouped into those who received treatment before infection or controls who did not receive treatment for both antiplatelet therapy and, separately, statin therapy. Because of the retrospective study design and thus the nonrandomized treatment groups, a propensity score approach was used to account for the confounding factors that may have influenced treatment allocation. Antiplatelet therapy included aspirin, dipyridamole, clopidogrel, ticlopidine or any combination of these agents. Statin therapy included atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, rosuvastatin, or fluvastatin. The primary end point was a symptomatic embolic event that occurred before or during hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the propensity-adjusted effects of continuous daily therapy with antiplatelet and statin agents on risk of symptomatic emboli. Likewise, Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test for an independent association with 6-month mortality for each of the treatments.Results The study cohort comprised 283 patients with [corrected] IE. Twenty-eight patients (24.1%) who received prior continuous antiplatelet therapy developed a symptomatic embolic event compared with 66 (39.5%) who did not receive such treatment. After adjusting for propensity to treat, the effect of antiplatelet therapy on embolic risk was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-1.36; P=.30). Only 14 patients (18.2%) who received prior continuous statin therapy developed a symptomatic embolic event compared with 80 (39.4%) of the 203 patients who did not. After adjusting for propensity to treat with statin therapy, the benefit attributable to statins was significant (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.62; P=.001). The 6-month mortality rate of the entire cohort was 28% (95% CI, 23%-34%). No significant difference was found in the propensity-adjusted rate of 6-month mortality between patients who had and had not undergone prior antiplatelet therapy (P=.91) or those who had and had not undergone prior statin therapy (P=.87).Conclusion The rate of symptomatic emboli associated with IE was reduced in patients who received continuous daily statin therapy before onset of IE. Despite fewer embolic events observed in patients who received antiplatelet agents, a significant association was not found after adjusting for propensity factors. A continued evaluation of these drugs and their potential impact on subsequent embolism among IE patients is warranted.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4065/mcp.2011.0111

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Anavekar, N. S., Schultz, J. C., De Sa, D. D. C., Thomas, J. M., Lahr, B. D., Tleyjeh, I. M., Steckelberg, J. M., Wilson, W. R., & Baddour, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • King Fahd Medical City (SA)
Corresponding author
Anavekar, Nandan S.
Venue
Mayo Clinic Proceedings
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
86
Issue
11
Pages
1068-1074
ISSN
0025-6196 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982455879
Cited by
31
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2012-03-01)
Open access
Locations
  • Mayo Clinic Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Infective Endocarditis Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Internal Medicine › Venous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cardiovascular and Diving-Related Complications
Keywords
infective endocarditis, embolic events, antiplatelet therapy, statin therapy, aspirin, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, dipyridamole, 6-month mortality, propensity score adjustment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Child, Preschool, Drug Therapy, Combination, Endocarditis, Female, Humans, Infant, Male, Middle Aged, Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors, Retrospective Studies, Thromboembolism, Logistic Models, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Young Adult, Propensity Score

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review