Antithrombotic therapy after acute ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose-For patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke (IS), current guidelines recommend oral anticoagulation (OAC) alone for secondary prevention of IS. In a large prospective cohort of patients with acute IS and atrial fibrillation, we determine the association between antithrombotic regimen on discharge and risk of major vascular events. Methods-Prospective cohort of consecutive patients included in the Ontario Stroke Registry. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to determine the association between antithrombotic regimen on discharge and time to death or admission for recurrent IS, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding. Results-Two thousand one hundred sixty-two patients were hospitalized atrial fibrillation and acute IS. At discharge, 8.0% were prescribed no antithrombotic therapy, 21.6% antiplatelet therapy alone, 39.3% OAC (warfarin) alone, and 31.1% combination OAC and antiplatelet therapy. Compared with OAC alone (hazard ratio [HR], 1.0), no antithrombotic therapy (HR, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.86) and antiplatelet therapy (HR, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.50) were associated with an increased risk of the primary composite outcome, whereas combination OAC and antiplatelet therapy was associated with a trend toward a reduced risk (HR, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.04 overall and HR, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.02 in those with coronary heart disease). Results were consistent in those with severe stroke: HR 1.58 (95% CI, 1.21-2.06), 1.34 (95% CI, 1.09-1.63), and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74-1.11), respectively. Conclusions-Contrary to current guidelines, 30% of patients with atrial fibrillation and recent IS are not prescribed any OAC therapy on discharge, whereas a further 30% are prescribed combination OAC and antiplatelet therapy. Combination OAC and antiplatelet therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk requires evaluation in clinical trials, particularly with the newer OACs, given their more favorable risk-benefit ratio compared with warfarin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".