Preadmission Antiplatelet Use and Associated Outcomes and Costs Among ICU Patients With Intracranial Hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Patients with intracranial hemorrhage (including intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and traumatic hemorrhage) are commonly admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Although indications for oral antiplatelet agents are increasing, the impact of preadmission use on outcomes in patients with intracranial hemorrhage admitted to the ICU is unknown. We sought to evaluate the association between preadmission oral antiplatelet use, in-hospital mortality, resource utilization, and costs among ICU patients with intracranial hemorrhage. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected registry (2011-2016) and included consecutive adult patients from 2 hospitals admitted to ICU with intracranial hemorrhage. Patients were categorized on the basis of preadmission oral antiplatelet use. We excluded patients with preadmission anticoagulant use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and was analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Contributors to total hospital cost were analyzed using a generalized linear model with log link and gamma distribution. Results: Of 720 included patients with intracranial hemorrhage, 107 (14.9%) had been using an oral antiplatelet agent at the time of ICU admission. Oral antiplatelet use was not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-2.22]). Evaluation of total costs also revealed no association with oral antiplatelet use (adjusted ratio of means [aROM]: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.82-1.02, P = .10]). Total cost among patients with intracranial hemorrhage was driven by illness severity (aROM: 1.96 [95% CI: 1.94-1.98], P < .001), increasing ICU length of stay (aROM: 1.05 [95% CI: 1.05-1.06], P < .001), and use of invasive mechanical ventilation (aROM: 1.76 [95% CI: 1.68-1.86], P < .001). Conclusions: Among ICU patients admitted with intracranial hemorrhage, preadmission oral antiplatelet use was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality or hospital costs. These findings have important prognostic implications for clinicians who care for patients with intracranial hemorrhage.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".