Restarting and timing of oral anticoagulation after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a review and summary of ongoing and planned prospective randomized clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients' high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk-benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials.
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 | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".