BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and concomitant indication for oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is increasing. Although recent studies documented a favorable risk-benefit profile of OAC initiation, deciding whether, when, and which OAC should be started remains controversial. We investigated (1) OAC recommendations, its implementation, and adherence and (2) factors associated with OAC initiation after ICH. METHODS: This prospective observational study analyzed consecutive ICH patients (n = 246) treated at the neurological and neurosurgical department of the University-Hospital Erlangen, Germany over a 21-month inclusion period (05/2013-01/2015). We analyzed the influence of patient characteristics, in-hospital measures, and functional status on treatment recommendations and on OAC initiation during 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality of 24.8% (n = 61/246) left 185 patients discharged alive of which 34.1% (n = 63/185) had OAC indication. In these patients, OAC initiation was clearly recommended in only 49.2% (n = 31/63) and associated with favorable [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) = 0-3] functional discharge status [OR 7.18, CI (1.05-49.13), p = 0.04], less frequent heart failure [OR 0.19, CI (0.05-0.71), p = 0.01], and younger age [OR 0.95, CI (0.90-1.00), p = 0.05]. OAC was more often started if clearly recommended [n = 19/31 (61.3%) versus (no recommendation) n = 4/26 (15.4%), p < 0.001; (clearly not recommended, n = 6)] and associated with younger age [67 (58-74) versus 79 (73-83), p < 0.001], favorable functional outcome [n = 10/23 (43.5%) versus n = 5/40 (12.5%), p = 0.01], decreased mortality [n = 6/23 (26.1%) versus n = 19/40 (47.5%), p = 0.06], and functional improvement [n = 13/17 (76.5%) versus n = 7/21 (33.3%), p = 0.01]. We observed no differences in rates of intracranial complications [thromboembolism, n = 3/23 (13.0%) versus n = 4/40 (10.0%), p = 1.00; hemorrhage, n = 1/23 (4.3%) versus n = 3/40 (7.5%), p = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: Clear treatment recommendations by attending stroke physicians significantly influence OAC initiation after ICH. OAC were more frequently recommended and started in younger patients with better functional recovery independent from intracranial complications. This might represent an important determinant of observed beneficial associations, hinting towards an indication bias which might affect observational analyses.
BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and concomitant indication for oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy is increasing. Although recent studies documented a favorable risk-benefit profile of OAC initiation, deciding whether, when, and which OAC should be started remains controversial. We investigated (1) OAC recommendations, its implementation, and adherence and (2) factors associated with OAC initiation after ICH. METHODS: This prospective observational study analyzed consecutive ICHpatients (n = 246) treated at the neurological and neurosurgical department of the University-Hospital Erlangen, Germany over a 21-month inclusion period (05/2013-01/2015). We analyzed the influence of patient characteristics, in-hospital measures, and functional status on treatment recommendations and on OAC initiation during 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality of 24.8% (n = 61/246) left 185 patients discharged alive of which 34.1% (n = 63/185) had OAC indication. In these patients, OAC initiation was clearly recommended in only 49.2% (n = 31/63) and associated with favorable [modified Rankin Scale (mRS) = 0-3] functional discharge status [OR 7.18, CI (1.05-49.13), p = 0.04], less frequent heart failure [OR 0.19, CI (0.05-0.71), p = 0.01], and younger age [OR 0.95, CI (0.90-1.00), p = 0.05]. OAC was more often started if clearly recommended [n = 19/31 (61.3%) versus (no recommendation) n = 4/26 (15.4%), p < 0.001; (clearly not recommended, n = 6)] and associated with younger age [67 (58-74) versus 79 (73-83), p < 0.001], favorable functional outcome [n = 10/23 (43.5%) versus n = 5/40 (12.5%), p = 0.01], decreased mortality [n = 6/23 (26.1%) versus n = 19/40 (47.5%), p = 0.06], and functional improvement [n = 13/17 (76.5%) versus n = 7/21 (33.3%), p = 0.01]. We observed no differences in rates of intracranial complications [thromboembolism, n = 3/23 (13.0%) versus n = 4/40 (10.0%), p = 1.00; hemorrhage, n = 1/23 (4.3%) versus n = 3/40 (7.5%), p = 1.00]. CONCLUSIONS: Clear treatment recommendations by attending stroke physicians significantly influence OAC initiation after ICH. OAC were more frequently recommended and started in younger patients with better functional recovery independent from intracranial complications. This might represent an important determinant of observed beneficial associations, hinting towards an indication bias which might affect observational analyses.
Authors: Peter Brønnum Nielsen; Torben Bjerregaard Larsen; Flemming Skjøth; Anders Gorst-Rasmussen; Lars Hvilsted Rasmussen; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-06-09 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: J Claude Hemphill; Steven M Greenberg; Craig S Anderson; Kyra Becker; Bernard R Bendok; Mary Cushman; Gordon L Fung; Joshua N Goldstein; R Loch Macdonald; Pamela H Mitchell; Phillip A Scott; Magdy H Selim; Daniel Woo Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Santosh B Murthy; Ajay Gupta; Alexander E Merkler; Babak B Navi; Pitchaiah Mandava; Costantino Iadecola; Kevin N Sheth; Daniel F Hanley; Wendy C Ziai; Hooman Kamel Journal: Stroke Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Willem M Lijfering; Jan-Leendert P Brouwer; Nic J G M Veeger; Ivan Bank; Michiel Coppens; Saskia Middeldorp; Karly Hamulyák; Martin H Prins; Harry R Büller; Jan van der Meer Journal: Blood Date: 2009-01-12 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Thorsten Steiner; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Ronnie Beer; Hanne Christensen; Charlotte Cordonnier; Laszlo Csiba; Michael Forsting; Sagi Harnof; Catharina J M Klijn; Derk Krieger; A David Mendelow; Carlos Molina; Joan Montaner; Karsten Overgaard; Jesper Petersson; Risto O Roine; Erich Schmutzhard; Karsten Schwerdtfeger; Christian Stapf; Turgut Tatlisumak; Brenda M Thomas; Danilo Toni; Andreas Unterberg; Markus Wagner Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2014-08-24 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Joji B Kuramatsu; Jochen A Sembill; Stefan T Gerner; Maximilian I Sprügel; Manuel Hagen; Sebastian S Roeder; Matthias Endres; Karl Georg Haeusler; Jan Sobesky; Johannes Schurig; Sarah Zweynert; Miriam Bauer; Peter Vajkoczy; Peter A Ringleb; Jan Purrucker; Timolaos Rizos; Jens Volkmann; Wolfgang Müllges; Peter Kraft; Anna-Lena Schubert; Frank Erbguth; Martin Nueckel; Peter D Schellinger; Jörg Glahn; Ulrich J Knappe; Gereon R Fink; Christian Dohmen; Henning Stetefeld; Anna Lena Fisse; Jens Minnerup; Georg Hagemann; Florian Rakers; Heinz Reichmann; Hauke Schneider; Sigrid Wöpking; Albert Christian Ludolph; Sebastian Stösser; Hermann Neugebauer; Joachim Röther; Peter Michels; Michael Schwarz; Gernot Reimann; Hansjörg Bäzner; Henning Schwert; Joseph Claßen; Dominik Michalski; Armin Grau; Frederick Palm; Christian Urbanek; Johannes C Wöhrle; Fahid Alshammari; Markus Horn; Dirk Bahner; Otto W Witte; Albrecht Günther; Gerhard F Hamann; Hannes Lücking; Arnd Dörfler; Stephan Achenbach; Stefan Schwab; Hagen B Huttner Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Marta Pasquini; Andreas Charidimou; Charlotte J J van Asch; Merih I Baharoglu; Neshika Samarasekera; David J Werring; Catharina J M Klijn; Yvo B Roos; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Charlotte Cordonnier Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jochen A Sembill; Joji B Kuramatsu; Stefan T Gerner; Maximilian I Sprügel; Sebastian S Roeder; Dominik Madžar; Manuel Hagen; Philip Hoelter; Hannes Lücking; Arnd Dörfler; Stefan Schwab; Hagen B Huttner Journal: Ann Clin Transl Neurol Date: 2020-03-04 Impact factor: 4.511
Authors: Peter Brønnum Nielsen; Line Melgaard; Thure Filskov Overvad; Martin Jensen; Torben Bjerregaard Larsen; Gregory Y H Lip Journal: Stroke Date: 2022-04-13 Impact factor: 10.170