Observational studyJournal of neurology2018
Initiating anticoagulant therapy after ICH is associated with patient characteristics and treatment recommendations.
Observational study in Journal of neurology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antithrombotic Therapy After Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Real-World Evidence for In-Hospital Resumption.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2026Article
- An explainable artificial intelligence framework for clinical decision support in stroke discharge planning.PloS one · 2026Article
- Rivaroxaban versus low-molecular-weight heparins for short- and long-term prognosis in patients with deep vein thrombosis after spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2025Article
- Reversal and resumption of anticoagulants in patients with anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage.European journal of medical research · 2024Review
- Article
- Hematoma enlargement characteristics in deep versus lobar intracerebral hemorrhage.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2020Observational
- Article
- Resumption of oral anticoagulation after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage.Neurological research and practice · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe 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.
methodsThis 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.
resultsIn-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].
conclusionsClear 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.