MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396897038 · doi:10.1177/23969873241251931

Timing of oral anticoagulants initiation for atrial fibrillation after acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4396897038 on OpenAlexafffund
Lina Palaiodimou, Maria‐Ioanna Stefanou, Aristeidis H. Katsanos, Gian Marco De Marchis, Diana Aguiar de Sousa, Jesse Dawson, Mira Katan, Theodoros Karapanayiotides, Konstantinos G. Toutouzas, Maurizio Paciaroni, David Seiffge, Georgios Tsivgoulis

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Stroke Journal · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationStroke (engine)Internal medicineObservational studyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisRelative riskSubgroup analysisCohort studyIschemic strokeCardiologyConfidence intervalIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: There is a longstanding clinical uncertainty regarding the optimal timing of initiating oral anticoagulants (OAC) for non-valvular atrial fibrillation following acute ischemic stroke. Current international recommendations are based on expert opinions, while significant diversity among clinicians is noted in everyday practice. Methods: We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including all available randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies that investigated early versus later OAC-initiation for atrial fibrillation after acute ischemic stroke. The primary outcome was defined as the composite of ischemic and hemorrhagic events and mortality at follow-up. Secondary outcomes included the components of the composite outcome (ischemic stroke recurrence, intracranial hemorrhage, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). Pooled estimates were calculated with random-effects model. Results: Nine studies (two RCTs and seven observational) were included comprising a total of 4946 patients with early OAC-initiation versus 4573 patients with later OAC-initiation following acute ischemic stroke. Early OAC-initiation was associated with reduced risk of the composite outcome (RR = 0.74; 95% CI:0.56–0.98; I 2 = 46%) and ischemic stroke recurrence (RR = 0.64; 95% CI:0.43–0.95; I 2 = 60%) compared to late OAC-initiation. Regarding safety outcomes, similar rates of intracranial hemorrhage (RR = 0.98; 95% CI:0.57–1.69; I 2 = 21%), major bleeding (RR = 0.78; 95% CI:0.40–1.51; I 2 = 0%), and mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI:0.61–1.45; I 2 = 0%) were observed. There were no subgroup differences, when RCTs and observational studies were separately evaluated. Conclusions: Early OAC-initiation in acute ischemic stroke patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation appears to have better efficacy and a similar safety profile compared to later OAC-initiation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.034
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Stroke JournalSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207