Background: A small randomized controlled trial suggested that dabigatran may be as effective as warfarin in the treatment of cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT). We aimed to compare direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin in a real-world CVT cohort. Methods: This multicenter international retrospective study (United States, Europe, New Zealand) included consecutive patients with CVT treated with oral anticoagulation from January 2015 to December 2020. We abstracted demographics and CVT risk factors, hypercoagulable labs, baseline imaging data, and clinical and radiological outcomes from medical records. We used adjusted inverse probability of treatment weighted Cox-regression models to compare recurrent cerebral or systemic venous thrombosis, death, and major hemorrhage in patients treated with warfarin versus DOACs. We performed adjusted inverse probability of treatment weighted logistic regression to compare recanalization rates on follow-up imaging across the 2 treatments groups. Results: Among 1025 CVT patients across 27 centers, 845 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 44.8 years, 64.7% were women; 33.0% received DOAC only, 51.8% received warfarin only, and 15.1% received both treatments at different times. During a median follow-up of 345 (interquartile range, 140–720) days, there were 5.68 recurrent venous thrombosis, 3.77 major hemorrhages, and 1.84 deaths per 100 patient-years. Among 525 patients who met recanalization analysis inclusion criteria, 36.6% had complete, 48.2% had partial, and 15.2% had no recanalization. When compared with warfarin, DOAC treatment was associated with similar risk of recurrent venous thrombosis (aHR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.51–1.73]; P =0.84), death (aHR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.22–2.76]; P =0.70), and rate of partial/complete recanalization (aOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.48–1.73]; P =0.79), but a lower risk of major hemorrhage (aHR, 0.35 [95% CI, 0.15–0.82]; P =0.02). Conclusions: In patients with CVT, treatment with DOACs was associated with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes and favorable safety profile when compared with warfarin treatment. Our findings need confirmation by large prospective or randomized studies.
Objective To determine whether higher blood pressure mean (BPM) or hemoglobin A1c is associated with progression of white matter hyperintensity (WMH) on MRI in patients with type 2 diabetes, and whether intensive blood pressure or glycemic control can reduce that progression. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Memory in Diabetes (ACCORD MIND) research materials. The primary outcome is change in WMH volume (DWMH) between a baseline and month-40 MRI, and the primary predictor is BPM and A1c between the MRIs. Additional analyses compared DWMH in the intensive vs standard glycemic control randomization arms (n = 502) and intensive vs standard blood pressure control randomization arms (n = 314).
Brain imaging is essential to the clinical management of patients with ischemic stroke. Timely and accessible neuroimaging, however, can be limited in clinical stroke pathways. Here, portable magnetic resonance imaging (pMRI) acquired at very low magnetic field strength (0.064 T) is used to obtain actionable bedside neuroimaging for 50 confirmed patients with ischemic stroke. Low-field pMRI detected infarcts in 45 (90%) patients across cortical, subcortical, and cerebellar structures. Lesions as small as 4 mm were captured. Infarcts appeared as hyperintense regions on T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery and diffusion-weighted imaging sequences. Stroke volume measurements were consistent across pMRI sequences and between low-field pMRI and conventional high-field MRI studies. Low-field pMRI stroke volumes significantly correlated with stroke severity and functional outcome at discharge. These results validate the use of low-field pMRI to obtain clinically useful imaging of stroke, setting the stage for use in resource-limited environments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.