Pre-Injury Antiplatelet Therapy and Risk of Adverse Outcomes after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an increasing number of trauma patients presenting on pre-injury antiplatelet (AP) agents attributable to an aging population and expanding cardio- or cerebrovascular indications for antithrombotic therapy. The effects of different AP regimens on outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI) have yet to be elucidated, despite the implications on patient/family counseling and the potential need for better reversal strategies. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the impact of different pre-injury AP regimens on outcomes after TBI. In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the OVID Medline, Embase, BIOSIS, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to February 2022 using a combination of terms pertaining to TBI and use of AP agents. Baseline demographics and study characteristics as well as outcome data pertaining to intracerebral hematoma (ICH) progression, need for neurosurgical intervention, hospital length of stay, mortality, and functional outcome were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences comparing groups were calculated using random-effects models. Thirteen observational studies, totaling 1244 patients receiving single AP therapy with acetylsalicylic acid or clopidogrel, 413 patients on dual AP therapy, and 3027 non-AP users were included. No randomized controlled trials were identified. There were significant associations between dual AP use and ICH progression (OR, 2.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19–6.61; I 2 , 85%; p = 0.02) and need for neurosurgical intervention post-TBI (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15–2.28; I 2 , 15%; p = 0.006) compared to non-users, but not between single AP therapy and non-users. There were no associations between AP use and hospital length of stay or mortality after trauma. Pre-injury dual AP use, but not single AP use, is associated with higher rates of ICH progression and neurosurgical intervention post-TBI. However, the overall quality of studies was low, and this association should be further investigated in larger studies.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".