Observational studyNeurosurgical review2025
Increased bleeding risk with bridging and early anticoagulation in traumatic brain injury patients with intracranial hemorrhage and mechanical heart valves.
Observational study in Neurosurgical review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Traumatic brain injury in patients with mechanical heart valves on lifelong anticoagulation: incidence, management, and outcomes of intracranial hemorrhage.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe role of bridging anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients with mechanical heart valves (MHV) remains uncertain. While bridging has traditionally been used to reduce thromboembolic risk, emerging evidence suggests it may increase bleeding complications without clear benefit. This study evaluates the impact of bridging and anticoagulation resumption timing on clinical outcomes.
methodsA retrospective observational study was conducted at Memorial Hermann–Texas Medical Center, including 44 adult patients with MHV and acute TBI previously on warfarin. Patients were categorized into bridging (n = 22) and non-bridging (n = 22) groups. Anticoagulation resumption was also compared between early (< 14 days, n = 37) and delayed (> 14 days, n = 7) initiation groups. The primary outcome was hematoma expansion leading to clinical deterioration or death. Secondary outcomes included thromboembolic events, extracranial bleeding, and anticoagulation-related laboratory abnormalities.
resultsHematoma expansion was more frequent in the bridging group (27.3%) compared to the non-bridging group (13.6%), and four bridging patients (18.2%) required blood transfusions. Thromboembolic events occurred in one bridging (4.5%) and two non-bridging patients (9.1%). Among those who resumed anticoagulation within 14 days, four experienced hematoma expansion and four had extracranial bleeding, whereas none in the delayed resumption group (> 14 days) had these complications. Laboratory findings showed higher supratherapeutic INR (> 3.5) and PTT (> 90) in the bridging group.
conclusionBleeding complications were more frequent in the bridging group, while thromboembolic events were slightly more common in the non-bridging group. Early anticoagulation resumption (< 14 days) appeared to carry a higher complication rate, whereas delaying beyond 14 days was associated with fewer observed events. These findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40624381What 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.