Early Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke Due to Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal timing for initiation of oral anticoagulation in patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective observational studies to assess the efficacy and safety of early anticoagulation in AF-related AIS (within 1 week versus 2 weeks). A second comparison was performed assessing the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus vitamin-K antagonists (VKAs) in the two early time windows. The outcomes of interest were IS recurrence, all-cause mortality, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH) and any ICH. Results: Eight eligible studies (6 observational, 2 RCTs) were identified, including 5616 patients with AF-related AIS who received early anticoagulation. Patients that received anticoagulants within the first week after index stroke had similar rate of recurrent IS, sICH and all-cause mortality compared to patients that received anticoagulation within two weeks (test for subgroup differences p = 0.1677; p = 0.8941; and p = 0.7786, respectively). When DOACs were compared to VKAs, there was a significant decline of IS recurrence in DOAC-treated patients compared to VKAs (RR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.52–0.82), which was evident in both time windows of treatment initiation. DOACs were also associated with lower likelihood of sICH and all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Early initiation of anticoagulation within the first week may have a similar efficacy and safety profile compared to later anticoagulation (within two weeks), while DOACs seem more effective in terms of IS recurrence and survival compared to VKAs.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".