ArticleeNeurologicalSci2020
Long-term outcome of resuming anticoagulation after anticoagulation-associated intracerebral hemorrhage.
Article in eNeurologicalSci, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Direct oral anticoagulation versus no therapy or antiplatelet for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation and history of intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Drug and Device Strategies for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation After Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- A review of the use of oral anticoagulants in individuals with atrial fibrillation who had experienced intracranial hemorrhage in the past.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2025Review
- Anticoagulation medication in nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage survivors with atrial fibrillation.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe risk and benefit of restarting oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy among patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) and an episode of anticoagulation-associated intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) remain unclear. Whether or not to resume OAC after an OAC-associated ICH will remain an unanswered clinical question until we have sufficient data through randomized clinical trials. Here, we analyzed the long-term outcome of patients with AF who did or did not resume OAC after an OAC-associated ICH. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe studied consecutive patients with AF who were discharged from our institution after an OAC-associated ICH event between 2010 and 2017. Baseline characteristics of patients, past medical history, and history or OAC use were recorded. Outcome measures in our study included recurrent ICH, ischemic stroke or systemic emboli, and death.
resultsOut of 115 patients with AF and OAC-associated ICH, 93 patients (mean age 76.2 ± 10.3 years [44-91 years old], 54.3% men) were included in this study. Thirty-eight (40.9%) patients resumed OAC after the episode of OAC-associated ICH. More than 70% of patients had resumed OAC within two months of ICH (mean delay 56.0 ± 52.5 days). There was no significant difference between the group who resumed OAC and the group who did not in terms of mean follow-up duration (1.9 vs. 2.4 years), the type of initial ICH, as well as history of hypertension, diabetes, previous ischemic stroke, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease, and tobacco use. There was no significant difference between the two groups considering the incidence rate of recurrent ICH (relative risk 2.9; 95% CI, 0.3-30.8). There was also no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence rate of ischemic stroke or systemic emboli (relative risk 0.9; 95% CI, 0.3-2.7). There was no significate difference between patients who did and did not resume OAC was 96 and 121 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (relative risk 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9).
conclusionsWe did not observe any significant difference between the group of patients who resumed OAC and the patients who did not in terms of recurrent ICH, ischemic stroke or systemic emboli, and death. However, there was a tendency toward a higher long-term risk of recurrent ICH among patients who resumed OAC.
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.