Thrombolysis for Ischemic Stroke Despite Recent Ingestion of Direct Oral Anticoagulants – A Growing Dilemma Also in India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The administration of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for patients with acute ischemic stroke who have recently ingested direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) presents a clinical challenge due to the perceived increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). Traditional guidelines from the US and European authorities advise against IVT within 48 h of last DOAC ingestion, unless specific coagulation tests indicate safety. However, emerging observational studies suggest that IVT might be safe in selected patients. A US stroke registry study and a global multicenter cohort study both reported no significant increase in symptomatic ICH among patients on DOACs compared to those not on anticoagulants. A systematic review of all published observational studies further supported these findings, showing comparable bleeding rates and functional outcomes in DOAC-treated patients. Reversal agents like idarucizumab for dabigatran have demonstrated potential in facilitating safer IVT administration, though logistical and cost-related barriers limit their widespread use. The variability in global guidelines reflects differing approaches to risk assessment and resource availability, highlighting the need for individualized treatment decisions. In India, the increasing prevalence of atrial fibrillation and stroke as well as prescription of DOACs necessitate adapted guidelines that consider local health-care infrastructure. Despite the promising observational data, the lack of randomized controlled trials underscores the need for further research to establish robust evidence for IVT use in this context. Collaborative international efforts and inclusion of diverse patient populations in future studies will be crucial to refine treatment protocols and improve outcomes for stroke patients on DOACs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".