Abstract 4360915: Association Between Direct Oral Anticoagulant Dose and Risk of Stroke/Systemic Embolism, Major Bleeding, or All-Cause Mortality in Patients with Ischemic Stroke and Atrial Fibrillation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF); however, inappropriate dosages may increase risk for adverse events. Using data from the American Heart Association’s Get with the Guidelines-Stroke registry (GWTG-Stroke) linked with Medicare data, we evaluated the association of DOAC dosing with risk of stroke/systemic embolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality in older ischemic stroke patients with AF. Methods: We included ischemic stroke patients admitted to a GWTG-Stroke hospitals in Oct. 2012-Dec. 2019 who were > 66 years, had a history of AF/flutter, and were discharged on a DOAC (dabigatran, rivaroxaban, or apixaban). DOAC dosing was defined as appropriate (standard dose or appropriately adjusted dose), underdose (reduced dose without indications for dose reduction or dose lower than recommended), or overdose (standard dose in patients with indications for dose reduction or dose higher than recommended). Normalized inverse probability weighted generalized boosted models were used to estimate 1-year outcomes after discharge. Results: Of the 37,464 ischemic stroke survivors (median age: 81 years; 53% female; 7% non-Hispanic Black), 68% were discharged with the appropriate DOAC dose, 22% were underdosed and 10% were overdosed. Apixaban was the most common DOAC (68%), followed by rivaroxaban (23%) and dabigatran (9%). The cumulative 1-year incidence of stroke/systemic embolism were 7.1%, 7.0%, and 7.9% among patients who were appropriate dosed, underdosed, and overdosed. After multivariable adjustments, there was no significant association between DOAC dose and stroke/systemic embolism ( Table ). However, patients who were overdosed (aHR 1.11 [1.01-1.23]) were associated with greater risk of major bleeding compared with appropriately dosed patients. Furthermore, patients who were underdosed were associated with greater risk of all-cause mortality (aHR 1.12 [1.06-1.18]). No significant association with mortality risk was observed in those who were overdosed. Conclusion: In a nationwide registry of ischemic stroke survivors with AF, approximately one-third of patients were prescribed a non-recommended DOAC dose. Patients who were overdosed had greater risk of major bleeding, while those underdosed had a greater risk of all-cause mortality. Strategies, including medical education, to ensure appropriate DOAC dosing at discharge are needed to reduce risk of adverse outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».