Risk of hemorrhagic transformation with early use of direct oral anticoagulants after acute ischemic stroke: A pooled analysis of prospective studies and randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Precise risk of hemorrhagic transformation (HT) in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains unknown, leading to delays in anticoagulation initiation for secondary stroke prevention. We sought to assess the rate of HT associated with direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) initiation within and beyond 48 h post-AIS. Methods: A pooled analysis of DOAC initiation within 14 days of AIS or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was conducted with six studies (four prospective open label treatment, blinded outcome studies and two randomized trials; NCT02295826 and NCT02283294). The primary endpoint was incident radiographic HT on follow-up imaging (days 7–30). Secondary endpoints included symptomatic HT, new parenchymal hemorrhage, recurrent ischemic events, extracranial hemorrhage, study period mortality, and follow-up modified Rankin Scale score. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We evaluated 509 patients; median infarct volume was 1.5 (0.1–7.8) ml, and median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was 2 (0–3). Incident radiographic HT was seen on follow-up scan in 34 (6.8%) patients. DOAC initiation within 48 h from index event was not associated with incident HT (adjusted OR 0.67, [0.30–1.50] P = 0.32). No patients developed symptomatic HT. Conversely, 31 (6.1%) patients developed recurrent ischemic events, 64% of which occurred within 14 days. Initiating a DOAC within 48 h of onset was associated with similar recurrent ischemic event rates compared with those in which treatment was delayed (HR: 0.42, [0.17–1.008] P = 0.052). In contrast to HT, recurrent ischemic events were associated with poor functional outcomes (OR = 6.8, [2.84–16.24], p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this pooled analysis, initiation of DOAC within 48 h post-stroke was not associated with increased incident risk of HT, and none developed symptomatic HT. The analysis was underpowered to determine the effect of early DOAC use upon recurrent ischemic events.
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 | 0.040 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 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".