Management of anticoagulation following central nervous system hemorrhage in patients with high thromboembolic risk

Spinal subdural haemorrhage secondary to strenuous exercise and warfarin, complicated by acute ischaemic stroke

Spinal subdural haemorrhage or haematoma (SSDH) is a rare condition that is often overlooked and missed on initial presentation due to its non-specific features that may mimic other more common pathologies. It is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, with few evidence-based management principles, particularly during the subacute stages of recovery. In this report, we detail a case of SSDH associated with exercise and anticoagulation therapy, which was complicated by acute ischaemic stroke. SSDH should be suspected in cases of acute back pain without a clear alternative cause, particularly in coagulopathic individuals. Following treatment, early recommencement of anticoagulation therapy may be justified in certain cases where indicated, after careful consideration of the affected individual's risk profile.

Between a rock and a hard place: resumption of oral anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is the most feared and lethal complication of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. Resumption of OAC after ICH has long posed a challenge for clinicians, complicated by the expanding range of anticoagulant agents available in modern clinical practice, including direct OACs and, more recently, factor XI and XII inhibitors. A review of the current literature found support for resuming OAC in the majority of patients after ICH based on pooled retrospective data showing that resumption is associated with a lower risk of mortality and thromboembolism without a significantly increased risk of recurrent hemorrhage. The optimal time to resume OAC is less clear; however, the available evidence suggests that the composite risk of both recurrent hemorrhage and thromboembolism is likely minimized, somewhere between 4 and 6 weeks, after ICH in most patients. Specific considerations to guide the optimal resumption time in the individual patient include ICH location, mechanism, and anticoagulant class. Patients with mechanical heart valves and intracerebral malignancy represent high-risk groups who require more nuanced decision making. Here, we appraise the literature with the aim of providing a practical guide for clinicians while also discussing priorities for future investigation.

Resuming Anticoagulants in Patients With Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Meta-Analysis and Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most disabling cerebrovascular events. Several studies have discussed oral anticoagulant (OAC)-related ICH; however, the optimal timing of resuming OAC in patients with ICH is still a dilemma. In this literature review/meta-analysis, we will summarize, discuss, and provide the results of studies pertaining to OAC resumption in patients with ICH.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Ovid Medline, and Web science, a systemic literature review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement on December 20, 2022. Inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis were all studies reporting mean, median, and standard deviation for the duration of anticoagulants resumption after ICH. Thirteen studies met the above criteria and were included in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 271 articles found in the literature, pooled analysis was performed in 13 studies that included timing of OAC resumption after ICH. The pooled mean duration to OAC resumption after the index ICH was 31 days (95% CI: 13.7-48.3). There was significant variation among the mean duration to OAC resumption reported by the studies as observed in the heterogeneity test ( P -value ≈0).

CONCLUSION

Based on our meta-analysis, the average time of resuming OAC in patients with ICH is around 30 days. Several factors including the type of intracranial hemorrhage, the type of OAC, and the indication for OACs should be taken into consideration for future studies to try and identify the best time to resume OAC in patients with ICH.

Cerebral infarction following administration of andexanet alfa for anticoagulant reversal in a patient with traumatic acute subdural hematoma

Background

Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism but increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications. If severe bleeding occurs with anticoagulant use, discontinuation and rapid reversal are essential. However, the optimal timing for resuming anticoagulants after using reversal agents remains unclear. Here, we report early cerebral infarction following the use of andexanet alfa (AA), a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors, in a patient with traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH). The possible causes of thromboembolic complication and the optimal timing for anticoagulant resumption are discussed.

Case Description

An 84-year-old woman receiving rivaroxaban for AF presented with impaired consciousness after a head injury. Computed tomography (CT) revealed right ASDH. The patient was administered AA and underwent craniotomy. Although the hematoma was entirely removed, she developed multiple cerebral infarctions 10 h after the surgery. These infarctions were considered cardiogenic cerebral embolisms and rivaroxaban was therefore resumed on the same day. This case indicates the possibility of early cerebral infarction after using a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors.

Conclusion

Most studies suggest that the safest time for resuming anticoagulants after using reversal agents is between 7 and 12 days. The present case showed that embolic complications may develop much earlier than expected. Early readministration of anticoagulant may allow for adequate prevention of the acute thrombotic syndromes.

Anticoagulant use in older persons at risk for falls: therapeutic dilemmas-a clinical review

PURPOSE

The aim of this clinical narrative review was to summarise the existing knowledge on the use of anticoagulants and potential adverse events in older people at risk of falls with a history of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The review also offers practical steps prescribers can take when (de-)prescribing anticoagulants to maximise safety.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Additional articles were identified by searching reference lists.

RESULTS

Anticoagulants are often underused in older people due to concerns about the risk of falls and intracranial haemorrhage. However, evidence suggests that the absolute risk is low and outweighed by the reduction in stroke risk. DOACs are now recommended first line for most patients due to their favourable safety profile. Off-label dose reduction of DOACs is not recommended due to reduced efficacy with limited reduction in bleeding risk. Medication review and falls prevention strategies should be implemented before prescribing anticoagulation. Deprescribing should be considered in severe frailty, limited life expectancy and increased bleeding risk (e.g., cerebral microbleeds).

CONCLUSION

When considering whether to (de-)prescribe anticoagulants, it is important to consider the risks associated with stopping therapy in addition to potential adverse events. Shared decision-making with the patient and their carers is crucial as patient and prescriber views often differ.

Management of oral anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is considered a potentially severe complication of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and antiplatelet therapy (APT). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who survived ICH present both an increased ischemic and bleeding risk. Due to its lethality, initiating or reinitiating OACs in ICH survivors with AF is challenging. Since ICH recurrence may be life-threatening, patients who experience an ICH are often not treated with OACs, and thus remain at a higher risk of thromboembolic events. It is worthy of mention that subjects with a recent ICH and AF have been scarcely enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ischemic stroke risk management in AF. Nevertheless, in observational studies, stroke incidence and mortality of patients with AF who survived ICH had been shown to be significantly reduced among those treated with OACs. However, the risk of hemorrhagic events, including recurrent ICH, was not necessarily increased, especially in patients with post-traumatic ICH. The optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation or restarting after an ICH in AF patients is also largely debated. Finally, the left atrial appendage occlusion option should be evaluated in AF patients with a very high risk of recurrent ICH. Overall, an interdisciplinary unit consisting of cardiologists, neurologists, neuroradiologists, neurosurgeons, patients, and their families should be involved in management decisions. According to available evidence, this review outlines the most appropriate anticoagulation strategies after an ICH that should be adopted to treat this neglected subset of patients.

Acute Traumatic Subdural Hematoma and Anticoagulation Risk

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation is used to prevent thromboembolic events. It is a common practice to hold anticoagulation in the first few days following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with intracranial hemorrhage. However, traumatic subdural hematomas (SDH) are prone to re-hemorrhage long after the trauma. Data are scarce in the literature on the best timing to resume anticoagulation following a TBI.

METHODS

Review of 95 consecutive patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center with a diagnosis of traumatic SDH and requiring anticoagulation. The reasons for anticoagulation, the amount of time without anticoagulation, CT characteristics, and the incidence of thromboembolic events or SDH re-hemorrhage were collected.

RESULTS

41.3% used anticoagulation for coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease, 24% for atrial fibrillation, 12% for cardiac valve replacement, and 12% for venous thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation was held a median of 67 days. For most patients (82.1%), anticoagulation was re-introduced once the SDH had completely resolved. For 17.9%, anticoagulation was restarted while the SDH had not completely resolved. One (1.1%) patient suffered from an atrial clot while anticoagulation was held. For those with residual SDH, 41.2% suffered from a SDH re-hemorrhage and 17.6% required surgery. The risk of re-hemorrhage climbed to 62.5% if the SDH remnant was large.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulation while there is a residual SDH was associated with a significant risk of re-hemorrhage. This risk should be weighed against the risk of holding anticoagulation.

Timing of anticoagulation for venous thromboembolism after recent traumatic and vascular brain Injury

Currently, there is no consensus guideline for initiating anticoagulation in patients with a traumatic or vascular brain injury. Initiating anticoagulation for management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) can vary significantly from 72 hours to 30 weeks due to the risk of hemorrhagic complications. The purpose of this study is to compare clinical outcomes using modified Rankin Score (mRS) in a patient population with early (≤ 3 days) versus late (> 3 days) initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation from the time VTE was diagnosed. This retrospective study included patients with a traumatic or vascular brain injury who developed either deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE). Use of anticoagulation prior to admission, diagnosis with VTE on admission, or patients with a non-brain injury were exclusion criteria. Secondary outcomes measured were all-cause mortality, length of stay, and reasons for early interruption of anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was started early in 76 (74%) patients compared to late initiation in 27 (26%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. The mRS score 0-3 versus 4-6 was similar in patients who received early anticoagulation versus those who received it later. However, there was a trend favoring better outcomes in the early group [mRS 4-6; 78% vs. 93%; p = 0.085] and in subgroup analysis of patients with VTE diagnosed 4-7 days [mRS 4-6; 26% vs. 56%; p = 0.006] compared to the late group. In univariate and multivariable logistic regression, only age was associated with a significant worse outcome (median, IQR) 36 years (24-50) vs. 58 years (44-65) OR 1.07 (1.03-1.12); p < 0.001. In this study, early initiation of anticoagulation did not worsen clinical outcomes.

Challenges in managing patients on anticoagulation: Thrombocytopenia, resumption after bleeding and recurrent thrombosis

Prescribing of anticoagulation is increasing worldwide. This is partly reflective of an aging population with cardiovascular comorbidities such as arrhythmias and prosthetic heart valves, alongside improvements in cancer treatments and survival. In this review, we discuss three common challenges faced by clinicians. These concern the management of patients with thrombosis and thrombocytopenia, resumption of anticoagulation in patients with a history of gastrointestinal or intracranial haemorrhage, and how to approach and treat a patient with recurrent thrombosis on anticoagulation. We consider the available evidence including relevant published recommendations and propose practical management suggestions to aid clinicians faced with these dilemmas.

Protecting the Brain, From the Heart: Safely Mitigating the Consequences of Thrombosis in Intracerebral Hemorrhage Survivors With Atrial Fibrillation

Optimal antithrombotic management after intracerebral hemorrhage remains one of the central unresolved issues for patients who survive, especially for those patients with atrial fibrillation. Given the observational nature of the studies regarding anticoagulation resumption after intracerebral hemorrhage, there is uncertainty regarding resumption of oral anticoagulation therapy and its timing. There is limited high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice, leading to significant practice variation and uncertainty for patients and providers. Here, we aim to provide the key elements to guide clinicians in their individual decision: whether or not to start or resume anticoagulation in patients with a history of intracerebral hemorrhage.

Restarting anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

•

This retrospective cohort study was performed using the Korean national health insurance claims data.

•

Compared with non-usage of antithrombotics, a consistent usage of anticoagulants or antiplatelets was associated with lesser severe thrombotic events and severe hemorrhage events in patients with AF who survived an intracranial hemorrhage.

•

Furthermore, compared with warfarin, novel direct anticoagulants were associated with a lower risk of thrombotic events.

Background

Resuming anticoagulation after an intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) poses a clinical conundrum. The absence of relevant guidelines has led to wide variations in the decision on resuming anticoagulation therapies after ICH. This study aimed to evaluate the risks of an anticoagulation therapy on severe thrombotic events (STE) and severe hemorrhage events (SHE) in Korea and compare the effects of novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and warfarin in patients with AF.

Methods

This study was performed using the Korean national health insurance claims data obtained between 2002 and 2017 from individuals who had recently survived an ICH with comorbid AF. The endpoints of this study were STE and SHE. Anticoagulants, antiplatelet agents, and non-antithrombotic users were analyzed for survival with propensity score matching.

Results

Among the 4,964 participants analyzed, 878 (17.7%) and 2,070 (41.7%) used anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents, respectively. Anticoagulant (hazard ratio [HR] for STE: 0.385, P < 0.0001; HR for SHE: 0.578, P < 0.0001) or antiplatelet users (HR for STE: 0.545, P < 0.0001; HR for SHE: 0.637, P < 0.0001) had a lower risk of STE and SHE than non-antithrombotic users. Anticoagulation 6–8 weeks post-ICH showed a tendency of the lowest risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.614, P = 0.0552). However, there was no difference in the risk between the anticoagulant and antiplatelet users. Further, NOACs were associated with a lower risk of STEs than warfarin (HR, 0.263; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Our results showed that in patients with AF, resuming anticoagulants and antiplatelets after ICH improved the STEs and SHEs. Further, NOAC had additional benefits as compared to warfarin.

Hemoptysis in Quadriplegia with Atrial Fibrillation Who Was Taking Edoxaban: a Case Report

The direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) would be the standard treatment for the prevention of stroke and thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients. The adverse effects of greatest concern are bleeding especially major bleeding. We present a case of a patient with a history of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and pacemaker, who developed severe anemia after massive hemoptysis while taking DOAC; however, he has continued taking DOAC. Through this case, we have summarized the current management of major bleeding associated with anticoagulation and discuss the optimal regimen for restarting of anticoagulation therapy.

Restart TICrH: An Adaptive Randomized Trial of Time Intervals to Restart Direct Oral Anticoagulants after Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage

Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis and death in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism (VTE) but also increase bleeding risk. The benefit/risk ratio favors anticoagulation in most of these patients. However, some will have a bleeding complication, such as the common trip-and-fall brain injury in elderly patients that results in traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Clinicians must then make the difficult decision about when to restart the anticoagulant. Restarting too early risks making the bleeding worse. Restarting too late risks thrombotic events such as ischemic stroke and VTE, the indications for anticoagulation in the first place. There are more data on restarting patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage, which is very different than traumatic intracranial hemorrhage. Spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage increases the risk of rebleeding because intrinsic vascular changes are widespread and irreversible. In contrast, traumatic cases are caused by a blow to the head, usually an isolated event portending less future risk. Clinicians generally agree that anticoagulation should be restarted but disagree about when. This uncertainty leads to long restart delays causing a large, potentially preventable burden of strokes and VTE, which has been unaddressed because of the absence of high quality evidence. Restart Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage (the "r" distinguished intracranial from intracerebral) (TICrH) is a prospective randomized open label blinded end-point response-adaptive clinical trial that will evaluate the impact of delays to restarting direct oral anticoagulation (1, 2, or 4 weeks) on the composite of thrombotic events and bleeding in patients presenting after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage.

Analysis of Normal High-Frequency Intracranial Pressure Values and Treatment Threshold in Neurocritical Care Patients: Insights into Normal Values and a Potential Treatment Threshold

Importance

Intracranial pressure (ICP) elevation is a compartment syndrome that impairs blood flow to the brain. Despite the importance of ICP values in neurocritical care, normal ICP values and the precise ICP threshold at which treatment should be initiated remain uncertain.

Objective

To refine our understanding of normal ICP values and determine the ICP threshold most strongly associated with outcome.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Prospective observational study (2004-2010), with outcomes determined at hospital discharge. The study included neurocritical care patients from a single level I trauma center, San Francisco General Hospital. Three hundred eighty-three patients had a traumatic brain injury with or without craniectomy; 140 patients had another indication for ICP monitoring. Consecutive patients were studied. Data analyses were completed between March 2015 and December 2019.

Exposures

Five hundred twenty-three ICP-monitored patients.

Main Outcomes and Measures

A computer system prospectively and automatically collected 1-minute physiologic data from patients in the intensive care unit during a 6-year period. Mean ICP was calculated, as was the proportion of ICP values greater than thresholds from 1 to 80 mm Hg in 1-mm Hg increments. The association between these measures and outcome was explored for various epochs up to 30 days from the time of injury. A principal component analysis was used to explore physiologic changes at various ICP thresholds, and elastic net regression was used to identify ICP thresholds most strongly associated with Glasgow Outcome Scale score at discharge.

Results

Of the 523 studied patients, 70.7% of studied patients were men (n = 370) and 72.1% had a traumatic brain injury (n = 377). A total of 4 090 964 1-minute ICP measurements were recorded for the included patients (7.78 years of recordings). Intracranial pressure values of 8 to 9 mm Hg were most commonly recorded and could possibly reflect normal values. The principal component analysis suggested state shifts in the physiome occurred at ICPs greater than 19 mm Hg and 24 mm Hg. Elastic net regression identified an ICP threshold of 19 mm Hg as most robustly associated with outcome when considering all neurocritical care patients, patients with TBI, and patients with TBI who underwent craniectomy. Intracranial pressure values greater than 19 mm Hg were associated with mortality, while lower values were associated with outcome in surviving patients.

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides insight into what normal ICP values could be. An ICP threshold of 19 mm Hg was robustly associated with outcome in studied patients, although lower ICP values were associated with outcome in surviving patients.

Timing of Restarting Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapies After Traumatic Subdural Hematoma-A Single Institution Experience

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of information regarding the optimal timing of restarting antiplatelet therapy (APT) and anticoagulation therapy (ACT) after traumatic subdural hematoma (tSDH). Therefore, we sought to report our experience at a single level 1 trauma center with regard to restarting APT and/or ACT after tSDH.

METHODS

A total of 456 consecutive records were reviewed for unplanned hematoma evacuation within 90 days of discharge and thrombotic/thromboembolic events before restarting APT and/or ACT.

RESULTS

There was no difference in unplanned hematoma evacuation rate in patients not receiving APT or ACT (control) compared with those necessitating APT and/or ACT (6.4% control, 6.9% APT alone, 5.8% ACT alone, 5.4% APT and ACT). There was an increase in post-tSDH thrombosis/thromboembolism in patients needing to restart ACT (1.9% APT alone, P = 0.53 vs. control; 5.8% ACT alone, P = 0.04 vs. control; 16% APT and ACT; P < 0.001 vs. control). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with coronary artery disease necessitating APT and patients with atrial fibrillation necessitating ACT had higher thrombosis/thromboembolism rates compared with controls (1.0% control vs. 6.1% coronary artery disease, P = 0.02; 1.0% control vs. 10.1% atrial fibrillation, P < 0.001). The median restart time of ACT was approximately 1 month after trauma; APT was restarted 2-4 weeks after trauma depending on clinical indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients requiring reinitiation of APT and/or ACT after tSDH were at elevated risk of thrombotic/thromboembolic events but not unplanned hematoma evacuation. Therefore, patients should be followed closely until APT and/or ACT are restarted, and consideration for earlier reinitiation of blood thinners should be given on a case-by-case basis.

Restart of Anticoagulant Therapy and Risk of Thrombosis, Rebleeding, and Death after Factor Xa Inhibitor Reversal in Major Bleeding Patients

Background  Lack of data on balancing bleeding and thrombosis risk causes uncertainty about restarting anticoagulants after major bleeding. Anticoagulant reversal trials offer prospectively gathered data after major bleeding with well-documented safety events and restarting behavior.

Objectives  To examine the relationship of restarting anticoagulation with thrombosis, rebleeding, and death.

Methods  This is a posthoc analysis of a prospective factor Xa inhibitor reversal study at 63 centers in North America and Europe. We compared outcomes of restarted patients with those not restarted using landmark and time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Outcomes included thrombotic and bleeding events and death and a composite of all three.

Results  Of 352 patients enrolled, oral anticoagulation was restarted in 100 (28%) during 30-day follow-up. Thirty-four (9.7%) had thrombotic events, 15 (4.3%) had bleeding events (after day 3), and 49 (14%) died. In the landmark analysis comparing patients restarted within 14 days to those not, restarting was associated with decreased thrombotic events (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.112; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.001–0.944; p  = 0.043) and increased rebleeding (HR = 8.39; 95% CI: 1.13–62.29; p  = 0.037). The time-dependent Cox model showed evidence for a reduction in a composite (thrombotic events, bleeding, and death) attempting to capture net benefit (HR = 0.384; 95% CI: 0.161–0.915; p  = 0.031).

Conclusion  This analysis provides modest evidence that restarting anticoagulation in factor Xa inhibitor-associated major bleeding patients is correlated with reduced risk of thrombotic events and increased risk of rebleeding. There is low-level evidence of net benefit for restarting. A randomized trial of restarting would be appropriate.

Anticoagulant management by low-dose of low molecular weight heparin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation following hemorrhagic transformation and complicated with venous thrombosis: Five case reports and literature review

For patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) following hemorrhagic infarction (HI)/hemorrhage transformation (HT) and complicated with venous thrombosis, the management of anticoagulation is controversial. Our study intends to explore the safety and effectiveness of using low-dose of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) to treat NVAF patients with HI (or HT) and complicated with venous thrombosis.Between January 2018 and January 2019, NVAF related acute ischemic stroke patients with HT/HI, hospitalized in the department of neurology or rehabilitation in our hospital, are enrolled retrospectively. Among them, those who were found to have venous thrombosis and undergo anticoagulation (LMWH) during the treatment were extracted. We investigate the efficacy and safety in those patients who have been treated with anticoagulant of LMWH.Five cases accepted LMWH within 3 weeks attributed to the appearance of venous thrombosis, and all of them did not display new symptomatic bleeding or recurrent stroke. However, based on the results of a head computed tomography scan, there were 2 cases of slightly increased intracranial hemorrhage, and then we reduced the dose of anticoagulant. In addition, color ultrasound showed that venous thrombosis disappeared or became stable.Patients with NVAF following HI/HT have a higher risk of thromboembolism. Early acceptance of low-dose LMWH as an anticoagulant is relatively safe and may gain benefit. However, in the process of anticoagulant therapy, we should follow-up head computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging frequently, as well as D-dimer values, limb vascular ultrasound. Besides, the changes of symptoms and signs should be focused to judge the symptomatic bleeding or recurrent stroke. Furthermore, it is better to adjust anticoagulant drug dosage according to specific conditions.

Restarting Oral Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After an Intracranial Hemorrhage

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia in the general population. In western countries with aging populations, atrial fibrillation poses a significant health concern, as it is associated with a high risk of thromboembolism, stroke, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Thrombi are generated in the left atrial appendage, and subsequent embolism into the cerebral circulation is a major cause of ischemic stroke. Therefore, patients have a lifetime risk of stroke, and those at high risk, defined as a CHA2DS2-VASc2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age >75 years, diabetes mellitus, stroke/transient ischemic attack/thromboembolism, vascular disease, age 65-74 yrs, sex category) ≥2, are usually placed on oral anticoagulants. Unfortunately, long-term anticoagulation poses bleeding risks, of which intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is the most feared and deadly complication.In patients who survive an ICH, the question of oral anticoagulation resumption arises. It is a therapeutic dilemma in which clinicians must decide how to manage the risk of thromboembolism versus recurrent hemorrhage. Although there is a substantial amount of retrospective data on the topic of resumption of anticoagulation, there are, at this time, no randomized controlled trials addressing the issue. We therefore sought to address ICH risk and management, summarize high quality existing evidence on restarting oral anticoagulation, and suggest an approach to clinical decision-making.

Restarting and timing of oral anticoagulation after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a review and summary of ongoing and planned prospective randomized clinical trials

Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients’ high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk–benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials.

Anticoagulation decisions in elderly patients with stroke

Primary and secondary prevention of stroke is often a challenge in elderly patients due to the increase in both thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks with age. In some cases, there is sufficient data in the elderly population to allow recommendations or anticoagulation decisions to be made, such as for the indication of anticoagulation to prevent stroke related to atrial fibrillation (AF) or the choice of oral anticoagulant therapy in this situation. In other situations, the less robust data leave some questions; this is the case for the delay to initiate an oral anticoagulant therapy after an AF-related ischemic stroke, for the management of antithrombotic treatment after a stroke of undetermined cause or after intracranial bleeding or in a high-risk bleeding situation associated with stroke in the elderly subject. These issues will be discussed in this paper.

Antithrombotics in intracerebral hemorrhage in the era of novel agents and antidotes: A review

BACKGROUND

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH)1 is characterized by the pathological accumulation of blood within the brain parenchyma, most commonly associated with hypertension, arteriovenous malformations, or trauma. However, it can also present in patients receiving antithrombotic drugs, either anticoagulants such as acenocoumarol/warfarin-novel oral anticoagulants or antiplatelets, for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic disease.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to present current bibliographic data regarding ICH irrespective of the cause, as well as post-hemorrhage use of antithrombotic agents. Moreover, this review attempts to provide guidelines concerning the termination, inversion, and of course resumption of antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We reviewed the most recently presented available data for patients who dealt with intracerebral hemorrhagic events while on antithrombotic agents (due to atrial fibrillation, prosthetic mechanical valves or recent/recurrent deep vein thrombosis). Furthermore, we examined and compared the thromboembolic risk, the bleeding risk, as well as the re-bleeding risk in two groups: patients receiving antithrombotic therapy versus patients not on antithrombotic therapy.

CONCLUSION

Antithrombotic therapy is of great importance when indicated, though it does not come without crucial side-effects, such as ICH. Optimal timing of withdrawal, reversal, and resumption of antithrombotic treatment should be determined by a multidisciplinary team consisting of a stroke specialist, a cardiologist, and a neurosurgeon, who will individually approach the needs and risks of each patient.

Resumption of oral anticoagulation after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage

Background

Given an ageing population the incidence of both patients suffering from intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and those requiring oral anticoagulation will increase. Up to now there are no results from randomized trials available whether or not, and when, ICH survivors should resume OAC. This review summarizes the most important observational studies, and initiated ongoing trials, to help guiding physicians in daily routine decision making.

Findings

Several large observational studies and meta-analyses verified that OAC resumption was associated with a significant reduction of thromboembolic complications and mortality without leading to increased rates of recurrent ICH. OAC resumption seemed further associated with improved functional recovery and favorable long-term outcome. Given the general bleeding risk reduction in patients using Non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOAC) compared to Vitamin-K-antagonist (VKA), NOAC use should also be preferred after ICH, although specific comparative studies are pending. Patients with lobar ICH need special attention as these patients showed increased ICH recurrence rates, why decision making should include extended diagnostic work-up evaluating cerebral microbleed burden, cortical subarachnoid hemorrhage and superficial siderosis. Further, patients with mechanical heart valves need specific consideration as restarting VKA may be unsafe until two weeks, whereas optimal balancing of hemorrhagic with thromboembolic complications may allow earlier re-initiation one week after ICH. In patients with atrial fibrillation, resumption generally should take place between 4 and 8 weeks after ICH depending on a patient’s individual risk profile. Left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) might represent an alternative strategy in high-risk patients. Ongoing clinical trials will clarify whether OAC resumption versus LAAO versus no antithrombotic therapy may represent the best possible secondary stroke prevention in ICH survivors with atrial fibrillation.

Conclusions

According to observational data OAC resumption after ICH seems beneficial and safe. Ongoing clinical trials will create evidence regarding treatment effects of pharmaceutical resumption and interventional alternatives. Yet, individual decision making weighing the patient’s individual thromboembolic versus hemorrhagic risks remains essential.

Diagnostic and therapeutic approach in adult patients with traumatic brain injury receiving oral anticoagulant therapy: an Austrian interdisciplinary consensus statement

There is a high degree of uncertainty regarding optimum care of patients with potential or known intake of oral anticoagulants and traumatic brain injury (TBI). Anticoagulation therapy aggravates the risk of intracerebral hemorrhage but, on the other hand, patients take anticoagulants because of an underlying prothrombotic risk, and this could be increased following trauma. Treatment decisions must be taken with due consideration of both these risks. An interdisciplinary group of Austrian experts was convened to develop recommendations for best clinical practice. The aim was to provide pragmatic, clear, and easy-to-follow clinical guidance for coagulation management in adult patients with TBI and potential or known intake of platelet inhibitors, vitamin K antagonists, or non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Diagnosis, coagulation testing, and reversal of anticoagulation were considered as key steps upon presentation. Post-trauma management (prophylaxis for thromboembolism and resumption of long-term anticoagulation therapy) was also explored. The lack of robust evidence on which to base treatment recommendations highlights the need for randomized controlled trials in this setting.

Management of oral anticoagulation after intracerebral hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

The most recent years have significantly expanded knowledge regarding risks and benefits of resuming oral anticoagulation (OAC) after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). No randomized data is yet available, though several large observational studies and meta-analyses have investigated the impact of resuming OAC on thromboembolic versus hemorrhagic complications in these high-risk patients after ICH.

AIMS

The present review will summarize the most important studies conducted over the last years and will focus on relevant factors help guiding on decision-making on whether to start OAC after ICH.

SUMMARY OF REVIEW

Several important factors (demographic, co-morbidities, clinical characteristics) need to be considered before individual decision-making for or against OAC is employed. Existing observational data suggest that patients after ICH with indication for long-term oral anticoagulation benefit from OAC given significant reductions of thromboembolic events without significantly increasing bleeding complications. Studies even suggest that thereby also clinical outcomes may be improved. Prospective trials currently recruiting patients will clarify whether OAC after ICH - or left atrial appendage closure as a meaningful alternative - is of clinical net-benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Large sized and well-executed investigations (moderate quality of evidence) are showing that OAC resumption after ICH decreases thromboembolic complications and long-term mortality without significantly increasing bleeding complications. Further, data suggest that resumption may be safer in non-lobar ICH compared to lobar ICH, but overall, thoughtful selection, strict blood pressure control, and precise communication are paramount before starting a patient on OAC after ICH.

Risk Factors for Hemorrhagic and Cardioembolic Complications of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Associated with Anticoagulants

BACKGROUND

Patients with intracerebral hemorrhage taking anticoagulants are increasingly common in Japan due to the aging population. The clinical benefit of restarting anticoagulants is established, but the optimal timing of resumption is controversial. Risk factors for hemorrhagic and cardioembolic events in the acute phase are also unknown. This study investigated hemorrhagic and cardioembolic events and risk factors in intracerebral hemorrhage patients taking anticoagulants.

METHODS

The clinical data of 65 consecutive intracerebral hemorrhage patients taking anticoagulants were retrospectively reviewed. Hemorrhagic and cardioembolic complications and risk factors were analyzed.

RESULTS

Lobar hemorrhage was the most frequent (21 of 65 cases, 32.3%). At discharge, 31 patients (47.7%) showed severe disability or had died. Eight (18.6%) of 43 patients who restarted anticoagulants after initial treatment developed hemorrhagic events, including recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage in 3. HAS-BLED score was 2-3 in these 3 patients. Six (15.8%) of 38 patients who took anticoagulants for cardiogenic factors suffered cardioembolism. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome was significantly more common in the cardioembolic group (66.7%) compared with the noncardioembolic group (21.9%, P < .05). CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was paradoxically high in the noncardioembolic group (3 versus 5, P < .05).

CONCLUSION

HAS-BLED score and CHA₂DS₂-VASc score were not useful for risk assessment for hemorrhagic events, recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage, and cardioembolism in the acute phase. Inflammatory response might be important in the occurrence of cardioembolic events.

Safest Time to Resume Oral Anticoagulation in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

 There is no standard protocol to guide the optimal time to resume anti-clotting agents after traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients with a continued indication for anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy (AAT). This study develops baseline data supporting a future prospective cohort study. We predict that there will be significantly decreased adverse events when AAT is started on or after Day 7.

METHODS

 A retrospective chart review of 256 patients was performed. Patients admitted to a level I trauma center in West Texas between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2012, on anti-clotting agents (specifically acetylsalicylic acid, coumadin, and/or clopidogrel) and who suffered a TBI were included. Patient metrics included admission coagulation studies, type of TBI and treatment, and time to continuation of AAT. Outcomes were assessed using follow-up appointment data. The primary outcome was death (mortality). Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, re-bleed, venous thromboembolism, and pneumonia.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients met the inclusion criteria. However, only 85 patients on AAT presented for the six-month follow-up. Time to AAT resumption varied from immediate to 31 days. Out of the 85 patients, 32 patients never resumed AAT, 32 patients were restarted on AAT medication in less than seven days, 10 patients restarted medication between seven and 14 days, and 11 patients restarted AAT in more than 14 days. Adverse events occurred most infrequently in the AAT group resuming therapy between seven and 14 days (10%). Adverse events were most prevalent in the AAT group that never resumed therapy (68.8%).

CONCLUSION

 While most studies suggest that the safest time for resuming AAT lies between three and 10 days, our study revealed that adverse events were minimized in patients on AAT between seven and 9.5 days.

Resuming anticoagulants after anticoagulation-associated intracranial haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the adverse outcomes following resumption of anticoagulation in patients with anticoagulation-associated intracranial haemorrhage (ICH).

DESIGN

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis in this clinical population. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed, and two authors independently assessed eligibility of all retrieved studies and extracted data.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to February 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND OUTCOMES

Randomised controlled trials or cohort studies that recruited adults who received oral anticoagulants at the time of ICH occurrence and survived after the acute phase or hospitalisation were searched. Primary outcomes, including long-term mortality, recurrent ICH and thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes were the frequency of resuming anticoagulant therapy and related factors.

RESULTS

We included 12 cohort studies (no clinical trials) involving 3431 ICH participants. The pooled frequency of resuming anticoagulant therapy was 38% (95% CI 32% to 44%), but this was higher in participants with prosthetic heart valves, subarachnoid haemorrhage or dyslipidaemia. There was no evidence that resuming anticoagulant therapy was associated with higher long-term mortality (pooled relative risk (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.19; p=0.14) or ICH recurrence (pooled RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.80; p=0.57). Resumption of anticoagulation was associated with significantly fewer thromboembolic events (pooled RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.42; p<0.001). In a subgroup of patients with atrial fibrillation, resuming anticoagulant therapy was associated with fewer long-term mortality (pooled RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.37, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these observational studies, resuming anticoagulant therapy after anticoagulation-associated ICH has beneficial effects on long-term complications. Clinical trials are needed to substantiate these findings.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017063827.

Does the Presence of Subdural Hemorrhage Increase the Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage Expansion after the Initiation of Antithrombotic Medication?

Patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) with a clinical indication for antithrombotic medication present a clinical dilemma, burdened by the task of weighing the risks of hemorrhage expansion against the risk of thrombosis. We sought to determine the effect of subdural hemorrhage on the risk of hemorrhage expansion after administration of antithrombotic medication. Medical records of 1626 trauma patients admitted with traumatic ICH between March 1, 2008, and March 31, 2013, to a Level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed. The pharmacy database was queried to determine which patients were administered anticoagulant or antiplatelet medication during their hospitalization, leaving a sample of 97 patients that met inclusion criteria. Patients presenting with subdural hemorrhage were compared with patients without subdural hemorrhage. Demographic data, clinically significant expansion of hematoma, postinjury day of initiation, and mortality were analyzed. A total of 97 patients met inclusion criteria with 55 patients in the subdural hemorrhage group and 42 in the other ICH group. There were no significant differences in age, gender, injury severity score, admission Glasgow coma score, or mean hospital day of antithrombotic administration between the groups. Patients with subdural hemorrhage had a significantly higher rate of ICH expansion (9.1 vs 0%, P = 0.045). There was no difference in overall hospital mortality between the two groups. Incidence of ICH expansion was higher in patients with subdural hemorrhage. It may be prudent to use special caution when administering antiplatelet or anticoagulant medication in this group of patients after injury.

Anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation after intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review

Background

We summarize the existing evidence on the potential benefit of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) survivors with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF).

Methods

Systematic review of the literature to address the following issues: (1) prevalence of NVAF in ICH survivors, (2) current prescription of OAC, (3) factors associated with resumption of OAC, (4) risk of ischemic stroke (IS) and recurrent ICH, and (5) ideal timing for restarting OAC in ICH survivors with NVAF.

Results

After screening 547 articles, 26 were included in the review. Only 3 focused specifically on patients with ICH as primary event, NVAF as indication for OAC, and recurrent ICH and IS as primary endpoints. In addition, 19 letters to the editor/reviews/editorials/experts' surveys/experts' opinion were used for discussion purposes.

Conclusions

NVAF is highly prevalent among ICH survivors. The risks of IS, recurrent ICH, and mortality are heightened in this group. Most published data show a net benefit in terms of IS prevention and mortality when anticoagulation is restarted. However, those studies are observational and mostly retrospective, therefore selection bias may play a major role in the results observed in these cohorts. Only randomized controlled trials, either pragmatic or explanatory, can provide more conclusive answers for this important clinical question.

Reintroduction of anticoagulant therapy after intracranial haemorrhage: If and when?

Intracranial haemorrhage is a devastating complication of anticoagulation. In surviving patients, physicians will be faced with the dilemma of if and when treatment should be reintroduced. There is little evidence to support this decision making and guidelines refrain from making specific recommendations. Existing data relates almost exclusively to vitamin K antagonists and is entirely retrospective. There appears to be an overall benefit to reintroducing anticoagulation in most patients; although, this may not be advocated in those at the highest risk of recurrent bleeding. The issue of when to reintroduce treatment is more controversial. The literature suggests timing could be anywhere between 7days and 30weeks; however there is no overall consensus. This review summarises what evidence is currently available to support decision making and suggests pragmatic management options based on a risk-benefit assessment of thromboembolism and recurrent bleeding; however, it should be acknowledged this may not be entirely evidence-based.

Unanswered questions and research priorities to optimise stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with the new oral anticoagulants

This review article discusses the following, as yet unanswered, questions and research priorities to optimise patient management and stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation with the new direct oral anticoagulants (NOACs): 1. In patients prescribed a NOAC, can the anticoagulant effects or plasma concentrations of the NOACs be measured rapidly and reliably and, if so, can “cut-off points” between which anticoagulation is therapeutic (i.e. the “therapeutic range”) be defined? 2. In patients who are taking a NOAC and bleeding (e.g. intracerebral haemorrhage), can the anticoagulant effects of the direct NOACs be reversed rapidly and, if so, can NOAC-associated bleeding and complications be minimised and patient outcome improved? 3. In patients taking a NOAC who experience an acute ischaemic stroke, to what degree of anticoagulation or plasma concentration of NOAC, if any, can thrombolysis be administered safely and effectively? 4. In patients with a recent cardioembolic ischaemic stroke, what is the optimal time to start (or re-start) anticoagulation with a NOAC (or warfarin)? 5. In anticoagulated patients who experience an intracranial haemorrhage, can anticoagulation with a NOAC be re-started safely and effectively, and if so when? 6. Are the NOACs effective and safe in multimorbid geriatric people (who commonly have atrial fibrillation and are at high risk of stroke but also bleeding)? 7. Can dose-adjusted NOAC therapy augment the established safety and efficacy of fixed-dose unmonitored NOAC therapy? 8. Is there a dose or dosing regimen for each NOAC that is as effective and safe as adjusted-dose warfarin for patients with atrial fibrillation who have mechanical prosthetic heart valves? 9. What is the long-term safety of the NOACs?

[Antithrombotic treatment consensus protocol (anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy) during the perioperative and periprocedural period in neurosurgery]

The use of antithrombotic medication (antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant therapy) is widespread. Currently, the management of neurosurgical patients receiving this type of therapy continues to be a problem of special importance. Patients receiving antithrombotic treatment may need neurosurgical care because of bleeding secondary to such treatment, non-haemorrhagic neurosurgical lesions requiring urgent attention, or simply elective neurosurgical procedures. In addition, the consequences of reintroducing early (bleeding or rebleeding) or late (thrombotic or thromboembolic) anticoagulation can be devastating. In this paper we present the antithrombotic treatment consensus protocol during the perioperative and periprocedural period, both in emergent surgery and in elective neurosurgical procedures.

Decision Algorithms for Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: A Practical Guide for Neurologists

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are valid alternative options to vitamin K antagonists due to their limited interactions with drugs or food and the fact that they do not require regular coagulation monitoring. To this regard, recent practice guidelines recommend that DOACs should be considered as first-line anticoagulant therapy for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This review (1) outlines current international guidelines for the management of DOACs to prevent stroke in patients with NVAF, (2) outlines indications for elderly patients as well as specific settings including acute coronary syndromes and intracranial hemorrhage, and (3) offers a practical guide for the use of DOACs in neurological settings.

Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of thromboembolism. Antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatments may lower the risk of thromboembolism after ICH, but they may increase the risks of bleeding.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs for people with ICH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (24 March 2017). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to March 2017), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2017), and online registries of clinical trials (8 March 2017). We also screened the reference lists of included trials for additional, potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any antithrombotic treatment after ICH.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. We converted categorical estimates of effect to the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), as appropriate. We divided our analyses into short- and long-term treatment, and used fixed-effect modelling for meta-analyses. Three review authors independently assessed the included RCTs for risks of bias and we created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs with a total of 121 participants. Both RCTs were of short-term parenteral anticoagulation early after ICH: one tested heparin and the other enoxaparin. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was generally unclear or low, with the exception of blinding of participants and personnel, which was not done. The included RCTs did not report our chosen primary outcome (a composite outcome of all serious vascular events including ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, other major ischaemic event, ICH, major extracerebral haemorrhage, and vascular death). Parenteral anticoagulation did not cause a statistically significant difference in case fatality (RR 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 4.07 in one RCT involving 46 participants, low-quality evidence), ICH, or major extracerebral haemorrhage (no detected events in one RCT involving 75 participants, low-quality evidence), growth of ICH (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.29 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low-quality evidence), deep vein thrombosis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.96 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low quality evidence), or major ischaemic events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.28 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support or discourage the use of antithrombotic treatment after ICH. RCTs comparing starting versus avoiding antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs after ICH appear justified and are needed in clinical practice.

Optimal Timing of Anticoagulant Treatment After Intracerebral Hemorrhage in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Background and Purpose—

This study aims to provide observational data on the relationship between the timing of antithrombotic treatment and the competing risks of severe thrombotic and hemorrhagic events in a cohort of Swedish patients with atrial fibrillation and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH).

Methods—

Patients with atrial fibrillation and a first-ever ICH were identified in the Swedish Stroke Register, Riksstroke, 2005 to 2012. Riksstroke was linked with other national registers to find information on treatment, comorbidity, and outcome. The optimal timing of treatment in patients with low and high thromboembolic risk was described through cumulative incidence functions separately for thrombotic and hemorrhagic events and for the combined end point vascular death or nonfatal stroke.

Results—

The study included 2619 ICH survivors with atrial fibrillation with 5759 person-years of follow-up. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a reduced risk of vascular death and nonfatal stroke in high-risk patients with no significantly increased risk of severe hemorrhage. The benefit seemed to be greatest when treatment was started 7 to 8 weeks after ICH. For high-risk women, the total risk of vascular death or stroke recurrence within 3 years was 17.0% when anticoagulant treatment was initiated 8 weeks after ICH and 28.6% without any antithrombotic treatment (95% confidence interval for difference, 1.4%–21.8%). For high-risk men, the corresponding risks were 14.3% versus 23.6% (95% confidence interval for difference, 0.4%–18.2%).

Conclusions—

This nationwide observational study suggests that anticoagulant treatment may be initiated 7 to 8 weeks after ICH in patients with atrial fibrillation to optimize the benefit from treatment and minimize risk.

What to do after the bleed: resuming anticoagulation after major bleeding

Resuming anticoagulation therapy after a potentially life-threatening bleeding complication evokes high anxiety levels among clinicians and patients trying to decide whether resuming oral anticoagulation to prevent devastating and potentially fatal thromboembolic events or discontinuing anticoagulation in hopes of reducing the risk of recurrent bleeding is best. The available evidence favors resumption of anticoagulation therapy for gastrointestinal tract bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage survivors, and it is reasonable to begin postbleeding decision making with resuming anticoagulation therapy as the default plan. After considering factors related to the index bleeding event, the underlying thromboembolic risk, and comorbid conditions, a decision to accept or modify the default plan can be made in collaboration with other care team members, the patient, and their caregivers. Although additional information is needed regarding the optimal timing of anticoagulation resumption, available evidence indicates that waiting ∼14 days may best balance the risk of recurrent bleeding, thromboembolism, and mortality after gastrointestinal tract bleeding. When to resume anticoagulation after intracranial hemorrhage is less clear, but most studies indicate that resumption within the first month of discharge is associated with better outcomes.

Re-Initiation of Dabigatran and Direct Factor Xa Antagonists After a Major Bleed

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a relatively recent addition to the oral anticoagulant armamentarium, and provide an alternative to the use of vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. Regardless of the type of agent used, bleeding is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The decision to restart oral anticoagulation following a major hemorrhage in a previously anticoagulated patient is supported largely by retrospective studies rather than randomized clinical trials (mostly with vitamin K antagonists), and remains an issue of individualized clinical assessment: the patient's risk of thromboembolism must be balanced with the risk of recurrent major bleeding. This review provides guidance for clinicians regarding if and when a patient should be re-initiated on DOAC therapy following a major hemorrhage, based on the existing evidence.

Re-initiation of dabigatran and direct factor Xa antagonists after a major bleed

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are a relatively recent addition to the oral anticoagulant armamentarium, and provide an alternative to the use of vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. Regardless of the type of agent used, bleeding is the major complication of anticoagulant therapy. The decision to restart oral anticoagulation following a major hemorrhage in a previously anticoagulated patient is supported largely by retrospective studies rather than randomized clinical trials (mostly with vitamin K antagonists), and remains an issue of individualized clinical assessment: the patient’s risk of thromboembolism must be balanced with the risk of recurrent major bleeding. This review provides guidance for clinicians regarding if and when a patient should be re-initiated on DOAC therapy following a major hemorrhage, based on the existing evidence.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Traumatic Brain Injury

BACKGROUND

Optimal anticoagulation therapy (AT) in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a challenging task and proper management is strongly correlated with clinical outcomes. Only limited data are available on AT after TBI and practical decision making is based on the opinion of experts. This review sought to critically assess different therapeutic options using AT and antiplatelet agents in the perioperative period after TBI.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to summarize relevant data on AT in patients with TBI.

RESULTS

Patients with preinjury AT with TBI require emergent neurosurgical treatment and they are also at high risk of developing thromboembolic complications or hematoma expansion. New oral anticoagulants offer a lower incidence of intracranial hemorrhage compared with warfarin. The rate of intracranial hemorrhage during new oral anticoagulants or heparin therapy is significantly lower than that with vitamin K antagonists.