ReviewEuropean stroke journal2025
Oral Anticoagulation following intracranial haemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Review in European stroke journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colchicine for the Prevention of Vascular Events After an Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Placebo-Controlled Trial.Stroke · 2026Trial
- Safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulation in patients with intracranial hemorrhage and atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials.Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review the current evidence on anticoagulation for intracranial haemorrhage (ICrH) survivors with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodNarrative review of the literature.
findingsAF and ICrH are age-related conditions whose prevalence and comorbidity is expected to increase with the ageing population. Patients with ICrH were excluded from pivotal randomized trials of anticoagulation in AF and guidelines do not provide strong recommendations on if and when to (re)initiate anticoagulation in patients with AF and ICrH. Pooled analyses of phase II randomized trials have reported reduced risk of ischaemic major adverse cardiovascular events with anticoagulation in this population, but there remains uncertainty regarding the effects of anticoagulation on recurrent ICrH and death, as well as potential heterogeneity of treatment effect in higher risk subgroups, such as patients with cerebral amyloid angiopathy. There are no reported randomized trials investigating the optimal timing of anticoagulation (re)initiation in ICrH survivors with AF and the findings from observational studies have been inconsistent.
conclusionWhether or not OAC should be resumed in ICrH survivors with AF and the optimal timing of OAC (re)initiation are challenging clinical dilemmas that are becoming more frequent with our ageing population. The existing prevalence of AF in patients with ICrH and changing global demographics highlight the importance of ongoing and future randomized trials addressing unresolved questions surrounding optimal stroke prevention strategies in this vulnerable patient population.
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.