Dataset Information

Anticoagulation Timing in Cardioembolic Stroke and Recurrent Event Risk.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Guidelines recommend initiating anticoagulation within 4 to 14 days after cardioembolic stroke. Data supporting this did not account for key factors potentially affecting the decision to initiate anticoagulation, such as infarct size, hemorrhagic transformation, or high-risk features on echocardiography.

Methods

We pooled data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We included consecutive patients admitted with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation. The primary predictor was timing of initiating anticoagulation (0-3 days, 4-14 days, or >14 days), and outcomes were recurrent stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and major extracranial hemorrhage (ECH) within 90 days.

Results

Among 2,084 patients, 1,289 met the inclusion criteria. The combined endpoint occurred in 10.1% (n = 130) subjects (87 ischemic events, 20 sICH, and 29 ECH). Overall, there was no significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 groups (0-3 days: 10.3%, 64/617; 4-14 days: 9.7%, 52/535; >14 days: 10.2%, 14/137; p = 0.933). In adjusted models, patients started on anticoagulation between 4 and 14 days did not have a lower rate of sICH (vs 0-3 days; odds ratio [OR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-4.43), nor did they have a lower rate of recurrent ischemic events (vs >14 days; OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.36-1.62, p = 0.482).

Interpretation

In this multicenter real-world cohort, the recommended (4-14 days) time frame to start oral anticoagulation was not associated with reduced ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes. Randomized trials are required to determine the optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation. ANN NEUROL 2020;88:807-816.

SUBMITTER: Yaghi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8259451 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and Purpose- Whether to resume oral anticoagulation treatment after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remains an unresolved question. Previous studies focused primarily on recurrent stroke after ICH. We sought to investigate the association between cardioembolic stroke risk, oral anticoagulation therapy resumption, and functional recovery among ICH survivors in the absence of recurrent stroke. Methods- We conducted a joint analysis of 3 observational studies: (1) the multicenter RETRACE study (German-Wide Multicenter Analysis of Oral Anticoagulation Associated Intracerebral Hemorrhage); (2) the Massachusetts General Hospital ICH study (n=166); and (3) the ERICH study (Ethnic/Racial Variations of Intracerebral Hemorrhage; n=131). We included 941 survivors of ICH in the setting of active oral anticoagulation therapy for prevention of cardioembolic stroke because of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and without evidence of ischemic stroke and recurrent ICH at 1 year from the index event. We created univariable and multivariable models to explore associations between cardioembolic stroke risk (based on CHA2DS2-VASc scores) and functional recovery after ICH, defined as achieving modified Rankin Scale score of ≤3 at 1 year for participants with modified Rankin Scale score of >3 at discharge. Results- In multivariable analyses, the CHA2DS2-VASc score was associated with a decreased likelihood of functional recovery (odds ratio, 0.83 per 1 point increase; 95% CI, 0.79-0.86) at 1 year. Anticoagulation resumption was independently associated with a higher likelihood of recovery, regardless of CHA2DS2-VASc score (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.32-2.70). We found an interaction between CHA2DS2-VASc score and anticoagulation resumption in terms of association with increased likelihood of functional recovery (interaction P=0.011). Conclusions- Increasing cardioembolic stroke risk is associated with a decreased likelihood of functional recovery at 1 year after ICH, but this association was weaker among participants resuming oral anticoagulation therapy. These findings support, including recovery metrics, in future studies of anticoagulation resumption after ICH.

Project description:Background and purposeIn patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, treatment with low molecular weight heparin increases early hemorrhagic risk without reducing early recurrence, and there is limited data comparing warfarin to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. We aim to compare the effects of the treatments above on the risk of 90-day recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage.MethodsWe included consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation from the IAC (Initiation of Anticoagulation after Cardioembolic) stroke study pooling data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We compared recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between each of the following groups in separate Cox-regression analyses: (1) DOAC versus warfarin and (2) bridging with heparin/low molecular weight heparin versus no bridging, adjusting for pertinent confounders to test these associations.ResultsWe identified 1289 patients who met the bridging versus no bridging analysis inclusion criteria and 1251 patients who met the DOAC versus warfarin analysis inclusion criteria. In adjusted Cox-regression models, bridging (versus no bridging) treatment was associated with a high risk of delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.01-7.42]) but a similar rate of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.63-2.40]). Furthermore, DOAC (versus warfarin) treatment was associated with a lower risk of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.29-0.87]) but not delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22-1.48]).ConclusionsOur study suggests that patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation would benefit from the initiation of a DOAC without bridging therapy. Due to our study limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation from large prospective studies.