An Observational Study Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Conventional Anticoagulation Versus New Oral Anticoagulants in the Management of Cerebral Venous Sinus Thrombosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of conventional anticoagulants with new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for management of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST). Methods: This was a retrospective, prospective cohort study of patients who presented with CVST to a tertiary stroke center in the Middle East from January 2012 to October 2019. Patients with a diagnosis of CVST were identified, and data were analyzed for demographic characteristics. Specific consideration was given to compare the efficacy and safety of different anticoagulation treatments. Results: A total of 36 patients were included in the final analysis, with 15 (41%) men and 21 (59%) women and a male to female ratio of 1:1.4. Most of the patients (n = 22, 61%) were Saudi. Their ages ranged between 15 and 82 years (mean ± SD age of 34.22 ± 13.16 years). Headache was the most common feature, present in 22 (61%) of the patients, followed by unilateral weakness in 15 (41%) and cranial nerve palsies in 11 (30%). The most common etiology was prothrombotic state (both hereditary and acquired thrombophilia: n = 16, 45%). Other etiologies were postpartum state/oral contraceptive pill usage in 7 (19%), infections in 7 (19%), and trauma in 3 (8%). Most of the patients (n = 24, 67%) still received conventional anticoagulation (warfarin/low molecular weight heparin), but 9 (25%) of the patients consented to start NOACs. Efficacy (as measured by clinical improvement plus rate of recanalization of previously thrombosed venous sinuses) showed no statistically significant difference, although it proved to be better tolerated, as none of the patients stopped the treatment due to adverse events and risk of major bleeding was significantly low in the NOAC group. Nine patients in the warfarin group stopped medication, while none in the NOAC group did so (P = .034). Conclusion: NOACs were found to be at least as good as conventional anticoagulation for the management of CVST. However, efficacy was almost similar, a finding that is consistent with most of the published case series and the few recently published prospective studies. Larger prospective and population-based studies are needed to clarify our preliminary results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".