BACKGROUND: Lobar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is known to have better clinical outcomes and preliminary evidence of less hematoma expansion compared to deep ICH. No functional coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH have been identified using traditional plasma-based coagulation tests. We investigated for coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH using whole-blood coagulation testing (Rotational Thromboelastometry: [ROTEM]). METHODS: Clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were prospectively collected for primary ICH patients enrolled in a single-center ICH study. Patients with preceding anticoagulant use or admission coagulopathy on traditional laboratory testing were excluded. Lobar and deep ICH patients receiving admission ROTEM were analyzed. Linear regression was used to assess the association of ICH location with coagulation test results after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: There were 12 lobar and 19 deep ICH patients meeting inclusion criteria. Lobar ICH patients were significantly older and predominantly female. Lobar ICH had faster intrinsic pathway coagulation times (139.8 vs 203.2 s; 95% CI - 179.91 to - 45.96; p = 0.002) on ROTEM testing compared to deep ICH after adjusting for age, sex, and hematoma volume. This revealed functional coagulation differences, specifically quicker clot formation in lobar compared to deep ICH. No differences were noted using traditional coagulation testing (prothrombin time/partial thromboplastin time/platelet count). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot data may suggest that there are functional coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH identified using ROTEM. Whole-blood coagulation testing may be useful in assessing coagulopathy in ICH patients and in determining reversal treatment paradigms, though further work is needed.
BACKGROUND: Lobar intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is known to have better clinical outcomes and preliminary evidence of less hematoma expansion compared to deep ICH. No functional coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH have been identified using traditional plasma-based coagulation tests. We investigated for coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH using whole-blood coagulation testing (Rotational Thromboelastometry: [ROTEM]). METHODS: Clinical, radiographic, and laboratory data were prospectively collected for primary ICH patients enrolled in a single-center ICH study. Patients with preceding anticoagulant use or admission coagulopathy on traditional laboratory testing were excluded. Lobar and deep ICH patients receiving admission ROTEM were analyzed. Linear regression was used to assess the association of ICH location with coagulation test results after adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: There were 12 lobar and 19 deep ICH patients meeting inclusion criteria. Lobar ICH patients were significantly older and predominantly female. Lobar ICH had faster intrinsic pathway coagulation times (139.8 vs 203.2 s; 95% CI - 179.91 to - 45.96; p = 0.002) on ROTEM testing compared to deep ICH after adjusting for age, sex, and hematoma volume. This revealed functional coagulation differences, specifically quicker clot formation in lobar compared to deep ICH. No differences were noted using traditional coagulation testing (prothrombin time/partial thromboplastin time/platelet count). CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot data may suggest that there are functional coagulation differences between lobar and deep ICH identified using ROTEM. Whole-blood coagulation testing may be useful in assessing coagulopathy in ICH patients and in determining reversal treatment paradigms, though further work is needed.
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: H Bart Brouwers; Yuchiao Chang; Guido J Falcone; Xuemei Cai; Alison M Ayres; Thomas W K Battey; Anastasia Vashkevich; Kristen A McNamara; Valerie Valant; Kristin Schwab; Susannah C Orzell; Linda M Bresette; Steven K Feske; Natalia S Rost; Javier M Romero; Anand Viswanathan; Sherry H-Y Chou; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand; Joshua N Goldstein Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Guido J Falcone; Alessandro Biffi; H Bart Brouwers; Christopher D Anderson; Thomas W K Battey; Alison M Ayres; Anastasia Vashkevich; Kristin Schwab; Natalia S Rost; Joshua N Goldstein; Anand Viswanathan; Steven M Greenberg; Jonathan Rosand Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Atte Meretoja; Daniel Strbian; Jukka Putaala; Sami Curtze; Elena Haapaniemi; Satu Mustanoja; Tiina Sairanen; Jarno Satopää; Heli Silvennoinen; Mika Niemelä; Markku Kaste; Turgut Tatlisumak Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Candice Delcourt; Shoichiro Sato; Shihong Zhang; Else Charlotte Sandset; Danni Zheng; Xiaoying Chen; Maree L Hackett; Hisatomi Arima; Jun Hata; Emma Heeley; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Thompson Robinson; Leo Davies; Pablo M Lavados; Richard I Lindley; Christian Stapf; John Chalmers; Craig S Anderson Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David Roh; Amelia Boehme; Codi Young; William Roth; Jose Gutierrez; Matthew Flaherty; Jonathan Rosand; Fernando Testai; Daniel Woo; Mitchell S V Elkind Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-11-20 Impact factor: 9.910