Cargando…

Safety and Efficacy of Vinpocetine as a Neuroprotective Agent in Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Vinpocetine as a neuroprotective agent is effective in acute ischemic stroke in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since the last systematic review has been published in 2008, which didn’t find conclusive evidence favoring its use, two more RCTs have also been completed. METHODS:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Panda, Prateek Kumar, Ramachandran, Aparna, Panda, Pragnya, Sharawat, Indar Kumar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9053840/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35488169
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12028-022-01499-y
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Vinpocetine as a neuroprotective agent is effective in acute ischemic stroke in some randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since the last systematic review has been published in 2008, which didn’t find conclusive evidence favoring its use, two more RCTs have also been completed. METHODS: Relevant electronic databases were searched with a suitable combination of Medical Subject Headings terms to detect publications describing RCTs exploring the safety and efficacy of vinpocetine in patients with acute ischemic stroke. The risk of bias was determined by using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing the risk of bias in RCTs after full-text review and relevant data extraction. Higgins and Thompson’s I(2) method was used to assess heterogeneity in studies. The presence of publication bias was assessed by Egger’s test. We used a random effect model when I(2) was more than 50% and a fixed-effect model for other parameters. RESULTS: Four placebo-controlled RCTs enrolling a total of 601 and 236 patients in vinpocetine and placebo groups, respectively, were included. The number of patients with death or significant disability was lower in the vinpocetine group than that in the placebo group at both 1 and 3 months (relative risk 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–0.99 and relative risk 0.67, CI 0.48–0.92, p = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). The degree of disability in participants at 1 month and 3 months was also lower in vinpocetine group than that in the placebo group (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.49, 95% CI 0.03–0.95 and SMD 1.22, CI 0.23–2.24, p = 0.001 and 0.04, respectively). Change in mini-mental state examination score compared with baseline at trial enrolment was also better in the vinpocetine group than in the placebo group (pooled weighted mean difference 0.92, 95% CI 0.02–1.82, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Vinpocetine has some promising efficacy in patients with ischemic stroke when used in the acute stage in reducing the disability, but presently there is not enough evidence to suggest that it also reduces case fatality. More double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs of adequate sample size are needed before making recommendations for the routine administration of vinpocetine for all patients with acute ischemic stroke. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12028-022-01499-y.