Loading Curie Briefs...
Getting the latest healthcare news for you
Getting the latest healthcare news for you
For patients with spontaneous spinal cord infarction, standard antiplatelet therapy may be the safer bet. A new retrospective study found that patients treated with antiplatelet drugs had significantly lower all-cause mortality compared to those who received thrombolytics — suggesting that routinely applying stroke-style clot-busting protocols to spinal cord injuries may do more harm than good.
When a spinal cord infarction strikes, the treatment playbook isn't as clear-cut as it is for brain strokes — and a new study suggests that borrowing cerebral stroke protocols may actually put patients at risk. Researchers compared outcomes in patients with spontaneous spinal cord infarction (SCI) who received either standard antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, clopidogrel, or dipyridamole) or thrombolytic therapy (alteplase or tenecteplase), and the results strongly favored the antiplatelet approach.
The retrospective cohort study, published in Stroke, used the TriNetX Global Collaborative Network and included 192 propensity-matched patients followed for up to 180 days. Those on antiplatelet therapy had significantly lower all-cause mortality, while readmission rates and rehabilitation utilization were similar between both groups.
By the Numbers:
Why it matters: These findings challenge the assumption that thrombolysis — a cornerstone of ischemic stroke care — translates safely to spinal cord infarction. The authors urge individualized clinical decision-making rather than a one-size-fits-all approach, a critical message given how rarely SCI is studied in large trials.
