MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 10: Intracranial Hemorrhage Risks among Warfarin Treated Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients Receiving Thrombolytic Therapy

2012· article· en· W2504303536 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Xian, Gregg C. Fonarow, Eric E. Smith, Lee H. Schwamm, Mathew J. Reeves, Li Liang, DaiWai M. Olson, Adrian F. Hernandez, Eric D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWarfarinStroke (engine)Logistic regressionInternal medicineConfoundingAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background While intravenous thrombolytic therapy (tPA) improves the outcomes of ischemic stroke, treatment of those receiving warfarin raises concerns regarding symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). While guidelines suggest excluding patients with an international normalized ratio (INR) >1.7, little is known about the use and safety of tPA in warfarin-treated patients in clinical practice. Methods Data from 23,437 ischemic stroke patients treated with tPA with an INR ≤1.7 in 1,203 Get With The Guidelines-Stroke hospitals between April 2009 and June 2011. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association of preadmission warfarin use on ICH risk while adjusting for potential confounders. Results Overall 1,802 (7.7%) were taking warfarin prior to admission. Warfarin treated patients were older (median 77 vs. 71 years, p<0.001) and had more comorbid illness and greater stroke severity (median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale 14 vs. 11, p<0.001). Crude rates of ICH were higher in those taking warfarin 5.7% vs. 4.7% (unadjusted OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99-1.51). However, after risk adjustment, ICH risks were similar (adjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.25). These findings were consistent across several sensitivity analyses (Table). There were no significant differences between warfarin and non-warfarin users for serious systemic hemorrhage (0.9% vs. 0.9%; adjusted OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.48-1.24), any tPA complications (10.6% vs. 8.4%; adjusted OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.93-1.29), and in-hospital mortality (11.4% vs. 7.9%; adjusted OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.79-1.13). Among those receiving warfarin, a trend toward higher crude ICH rates was observed among those with higher baseline INR levels (Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel trend test, p=0.03). After adjustment for risk factors, higher INR levels had a marginally significant association with ICH risk (adjusted OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.00-1.20, p=0.06 for each 0.1 units increase in INR). Conclusion This represents the largest clinical experience of the safety of thrombolysis in warfarin treated patients who meets clinical guideline eligibility criteria. Use of intravenous tPA among warfarin-treated stroke patients (INR ≤1.7) was not associated with increased ICH risk compared to non-warfarin treated patients in routine clinical practice. These data provide empirical support of current AHA/ASA guideline recommendations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207