Abstract Number ‐ 49: Risk of HT with Early DOACs after Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The risk of hemorrhagic transformation (HT) in the early phase of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains unknown, leading to potential unnecessary delays in initiation of anticoagulation for secondary stroke prevention. We sought to assess the rate of HT associated withdirect oral anticoagulant (DOAC) initiation within and beyond 48 hours after AIS, using a pooled analysis of available published data. Methods A pooled analysis of 6 studies (4 prospective observational blinded outcome studies and2 randomized trials) of DOAC initiation within 14 days of AIS or transient ischemic attack (TIA) was conducted. The primary endpoint was incident radiographic HT on follow‐up imaging. Secondary endpoints included symptomatic HT, new parenchymal hemorrhage, recurrent ischemic events, extracranial hemorrhage, mortality within the study period, and follow‐up modified Rankin Scale score.The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) andhazard ratio (HR)with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results We evaluated 509 patients; median infarct volume was1.5 (0.1‐7.8) ml, andmedian National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale was2 (0‐3).Incident radiographic HT was seen on follow‐up scan in 34 (6.8%) patients.DOAC initiation within 48 hours 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 developedrecurrent ischemic events, 64% of which occurred within 14 days.Initiating a DOAC within 48 hours of onset was associated with a trend towards lower rates of recurrent ischemic events, but this was not statistically significant (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 Initiation of DOAC within 48 hours after stroke was not associated with decreased risk of recurrent ischemic events, or increasedincident risk of HT. Both recurrent ischemic events and incident HT occurred at similar rates.Unlike HT, however, recurrent ischemic events were associated with poor outcomes.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".