Dataset Information

Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: The safety and efficacy of restarting anticoagulation therapy after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the associations of anticoagulation resumption with the subsequent risk of ICH recurrence and thromboembolism.We searched published medical literature to identify cohort studies involving adults with anticoagulation-associated ICH. Our predictor variable was resumption of anticoagulation. Outcome measures were thromboembolic events (stroke and myocardial infarction) and recurrence of ICH. After assessing study heterogeneity and publication bias, we performed a meta-analysis using random-effects models to assess the strength of association between anticoagulation resumption and our outcomes.Eight studies were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis, with 5306 ICH patients. Almost all studies evaluated anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists. Reinitiation of anticoagulation was associated with a significantly lower risk of thromboembolic complications (pooled relative risk, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.45; Q=5.12, P for heterogeneity=0.28). There was no evidence of increased risk of recurrent ICH after reinstatement of anticoagulation therapy, although there was significant heterogeneity among included studies (pooled relative risk, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.77; Q=24.68, P for heterogeneity <0.001). No significant publication bias was detected in our analyses.In observational studies, reinstitution of anticoagulation after ICH was associated with a lower risk of thromboembolic complications and a similar risk of ICH recurrence. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the true risk-benefit profile of anticoagulation resumption after ICH.

SUBMITTER: Murthy SB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5699447 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Murthy Santosh B SB Gupta Ajay A Merkler Alexander E AE Navi Babak B BB Mandava Pitchaiah P Iadecola Costantino C Sheth Kevin N KN Hanley Daniel F DF Ziai Wendy C WC Kamel Hooman H

Stroke 20170417 6

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>The safety and efficacy of restarting anticoagulation therapy after intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the associations of anticoagulation resumption with the subsequent risk of ICH recurrence and thromboembolism.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched published medical literature to identify cohort studies involving adults with anticoagulation-associated ICH. Our predictor variable was resumption of an ...[more]

PMID: 28416626

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceNon-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) might be an attractive choice for stroke prevention in people without atrial fibrillation who may harbor a potential source of cardiac emboli, but not if certain individual NOACs carry risks of intracranial hemorrhage that are heightened relative to aspirin.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to assess the risk of intracranial hemorrhage with individual NOACs vs aspirin across all indications.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to May 28, 2018, with the terms novel oral anticoagulants, non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, direct oral anticoagulants, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, warfarin, Coumadin, vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, acetylsalicylic acid, or ASA, and major bleeding, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage. We restricted our search to clinical trials on humans. There were no language restrictions.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of 3 months or longer that included a comparison of the outcomes of NOAC use vs use of aspirin.Data extraction and synthesisTwo investigators independently abstracted data from eligible studies. We computed a fixed-effect estimate based on the Mantel-Haenszel method.Main outcomes and measuresOdds ratios (ORs) with 95% CI were used as a measure of the association of individual NOAC vs aspirin with the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. The hypothesis that intracranial hemorrhage risk would be higher with NOACs than aspirin was formulated during data collection.ResultsOur principal analysis included 5 randomized clinical trials comparing 1 or more NOACs with aspirin, with 39 398 individuals enrolled. Pooling the results from the fixed-effects model showed that a dose of 15 to 20 mg of rivaroxaban once daily was associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (2 trials; OR, 3.31 [95% CI, 1.42 to 7.72]) compared with aspirin, while a 10-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily or a 5-mg dose twice daily (3 trials; OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 0.93 to 2.21]) and a 5-mg dose of apixaban twice daily (1 trial; OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.88]) were not.Conclusions and relevanceA 15-mg to 20-mg dose of rivaroxaban once daily is associated with substantially increased risks of intracranial hemorrhage, while smaller daily doses of rivaroxaban and apixaban were not, implying that risk increase is dose dependent. It may be worthwhile to conduct randomized clinical trials comparing specific NOACs in specific doses (eg, apixaban, 5 mg twice daily) and aspirin in patients without atrial fibrillation, but with potential sources of cardiac emboli that could cause stroke.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to report the prevalence and mortality associated with anticoagulant-related nephropathy (ARN) through a systematic review of the literature.MethodsElectronic searches were conducted in the Medline and EMBASE databases, and manual searches were performed in the reference lists of the identified studies. The studies were selected by two independent researchers, first by evaluating the titles and abstracts and then by reading the complete texts of the identified studies. Case series, cross-sectional studies, cohort studies and case-control studies reporting the prevalence and factors associated with ARN were selected. The methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses of the prevalence of ARN and 5-year mortality using the random effects model were performed when possible. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.ResultsFive studies were included. Prevalence of ARN ranged from 19% to 63% among the four included cohort studies. Meta-analysis of these resulted in high heterogeneity [I 2 96%, summary effect 31%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 22-42%]. Subgroup meta-analysis yielded an ARN prevalence of 20% among studies that included patients with fewer comorbidities (I 2 12%; 95% CI 19-22%). In a direct comparison, meta-analysis of the 5-year mortality rate between anticoagulated patients who had experienced ARN and anticoagulated patients without ARN, patients with ARN were 91% more likely to die (risk ratio = 1.91; 95% CI 1.22-3; I 2 87%). Risk factors for ARN that were reported in the literature included initial excessive anticoagulation, chronic kidney disease, age, diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and heart failure.ConclusionsARN studies are scarce and heterogeneous, and present significant methodological limitations. The high prevalence of ARN reported herein suggests that this entity is underdiagnosed in clinical practice. Mortality in patients with ARN seems to be high compared with patients without this condition in observational studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Platelet transfusion has been utilized to reverse platelet dysfunction in patients on preinjury antiplatelets who have sustained a traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH); however, there is little evidence to substantiate this practice. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review on the impact of platelet transfusion on survival, hemorrhage progression and need for neurosurgical intervention in patients with tICH on prehospital antiplatelet medication. METHODS:Controlled, observational and randomized, prospective and retrospective studies describing tICH, preinjury antiplatelet use, and platelet transfusion reported in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Trials and Cochrane DARE databases between January 1987 and March 2019 were included. Investigations of concomitant anticoagulant use were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We calculated pooled estimates of relative effect of platelet transfusion on the risk of death, hemorrhage progression and need for neurosurgical intervention using the methods of Dersimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis. Sensitivity analysis established whether study size contributed to heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses determined whether antiplatelet type, additional blood products/reversal agents, or platelet function assays impacted effect size using meta-regression. RESULTS:Twelve of 18,609 screened references were applicable to our questions and were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. We found no association between platelet transfusion and the risk of death in patients with tICH taking prehospital antiplatelets (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-2.18; p = 0.346; I = 32.5%). There was no significant reduction in hemorrhage progression (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.34-2.28; p = 0.788; I = 78.1%). There was no significant reduction in the need for neurosurgical intervention (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.53-1.90, p = 0.996; I = 59.1%; p = 0.032). CONCLUSION:Current evidence does not support the use of platelet transfusion in patients with tICH on prehospital antiplatelets, highlighting the need for a prospective evaluation of this practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Level III.

Project description:Background: The benefits and risks of starting anticoagulation therapy, such as direct oral anticoagulations (DOACs) or warfarin, in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a history of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) remain controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of starting oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-oral anticoagulation in these patients. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched from inception to 01 May 2022 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies, reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes for anticoagulation therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with intracranial hemorrhage. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to evaluate bias risks for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies. An effects model was applied to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Results: We analyzed data from two randomized controlled trials (304 patients) and seven Cohort studies (17,477 patients). Compared to non-oral anticoagulation, starting oral anticoagulation therapy reduced the risk of Ischemic Stroke/Systemic Embolism (SE) (aHR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.55-0.57) and all-cause death (aHR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.35-0.80) in atrial fibrillation patients and a prior history intracranial hemorrhage. Starting oral anticoagulation therapy did not increase the risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66-1.74), but increased the risk of major bleeding (aHR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.00-1.91) than no oral anticoagulation therapy. The DOACs had a lower risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE (aHR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.70-1.00), recurrent intracranial hemorrhage (aHR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.49-0.82), and all-cause death (aHR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.48-0.88) compared to warfarin. According to subgroup analyses, starting oral anticoagulation therapy have a higher risk of recurrent intracranial hemorrhage than non-oral anticoagulation therapy (aHR: 1.57, 95% CI: 1.36-1.81) for Asians. Conclusion: After intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients, restarting or initiating oral anticoagulation therapy decreased the risk of Ischemic Stroke/SE and all-cause death but did not increase the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage. Direct oral anticoagulations have better efficacy and safety than warfarin if oral anticoagulation therapy is started. However, starting oral anticoagulation increases the risk for recurrent intracranial hemorrhage in the Asian region.

Dataset Information

Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets