MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390010820 · doi:10.1161/svin.123.000997

Predictors of Intracranial Hemorrhage Volume Expansion in Patients Receiving Factor Xa Inhibitors in ANNEXA‐4: Time and Severity Matter Most

2023· article· en· W4390010820 on OpenAlexaff
Mauricio Concha, Lizhen Xu, MacKenzie Horn, Tomoyuki Ohara, Juliet Nakamya, Jan Beyer‐Westendorf, Ashkan Shoamanesh, Alexander T. Cohen, Per Ladenvall, Stuart J. Connolly, Andrew M. Demchuk

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke Vascular and Interventional Neurology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHematomaGlasgow Coma ScaleAnesthesiaInterquartile rangeBolus (digestion)Internal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Andexanet alfa, a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors, resulted in effective hemostasis in 79% of patients with intracranial bleeding in the ANNEXA‐4 (Andexanet Alfa, a Novel Antidote to the Anticoagulation Effects of Factor Xa Inhibitors) trial (NCT02329327). However, little is known about predictors associated with hematoma expansion in patients with factor Xa inhibitor–associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) receiving andexanet alfa. Methods The ANNEXA‐4 trial was a prospective, single‐arm, open‐label study of andexanet alfa in patients with acute major bleeding within 18 hours after taking a factor Xa inhibitor. Hematoma volumes at baseline and 12 hours after andexanet alfa treatment were measured using a computerized‐assisted volumetric method. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses of clinical and nonclinical parameters were performed to identify factors predictive of different volumes of hematoma expansion. To this end, an ICrH Expansion Scale was developed. Results Overall, 305 ANNEXA‐4 study patients with baseline and follow‐up imaging were included, 15.7% of whom showed evidence of any ICrH expansion ≥6‐mL. Patients with ≥6‐mL ICrH expansion had a significantly ( P< 0.05) higher proportion of ICrH with multiple compartment involvement (36% versus 14.3%); shorter times from symptom onset to baseline computed tomography (median, 1.6 hours [interquartile range (IQR), 1.2–4.3 hours] versus 3.7 hours [IQR, 1.6–7.0 hours]); lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (14 [IQR, 12–15] versus 15 [IQR, 14–15]); higher systolic blood pressure 15 minutes before andexanet alfa bolus (mean, 151.6 mm Hg [SD, 24.1 mm Hg] versus 143.3 mm Hg [SD, 22.3 mm Hg]); and larger median baseline ICrH volumes (29.3 mL [IQR, 13.3–50.8 mL] versus 8.6 mL [IQR, 2.1–22.4 mL]). Multivariable analysis confirmed shorter symptom onset‐to‐computed tomography time and larger ICrH volume as independent predictors of ≥6‐mL growth and ICrH Expansion Scale change. Lower Glasgow Coma Scale showed a trend ( P = 0.06) as an independent predictor of ≥6‐mL growth but was an independent predictor of ICrH Expansion Scale change. Conclusion Shorter time from symptom onset to computed tomography, larger hematoma volumes, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale score at presentation increased the risk of ICrH expansion in patients with factor Xa inhibitor–associated ICrH treated with andexanet alfa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke Vascular and Interventional NeurologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207