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.

No abstract

Background: Missed or delayed diagnosis of acute stroke, or false-negative stroke (FNS), at initial emergency department (ED) presentation occurs in ≈9% of confirmed stroke patients. Failure to rapidly diagnose stroke can preclude time-sensitive treatments, resulting in higher risks of severe sequelae and disability. In this study, we developed and tested a modified version of a structured medical record review tool, the Safer Dx Instrument, to identify FNS in a subgroup of hospitalized patients with stroke to gain insight into sources of ED stroke misdiagnosis. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at 2 unaffiliated comprehensive stroke centers. In the development and confirmatory cohorts, we applied the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument to report the prevalence and documented sources of ED diagnostic error in FNS cases among confirmed stroke patients upon whom an acute stroke was suspected by the inpatient team, as evidenced by stroke code activation or urgent neurological consultation, but not by the ED team. Inter-rater reliability and agreement were assessed using interclass coefficient and kappa values (κ). Results: Among 183 cases in the development cohort, the prevalence of FNS was 20.2% (95% CI, 15.0–26.7). Too narrow a differential diagnosis and limited neurological examination were common potential sources of error. The interclass coefficient for the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument items ranged from 0.42 to 0.91, and items were highly correlated with each other. The κ for diagnostic error identification was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.821–0.978) using the Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument. In the confirmatory cohort of 99 cases, the prevalence of FNS was 21.2% (95% CI, 14.2–30.3) with similar sources of diagnostic error identified. Conclusions: Hospitalized patients identified by stroke codes and requests for urgent neurological consultation represent an enriched population for the study of diagnostic error in the ED. The Safer Stroke-Dx Instrument is a reliable tool for identifying FNS and sources of diagnostic error.

Background and Purpose: In a comprehensive stroke center, we analyzed the stroke code activations (SCA), assessed the impact of Covid-19, and the measures taken by the local government to lessen the spread of the disease. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed SCA and classified them into 2 groups: pre-pandemic activations (February 15 to March 10) and Covid-19 pandemic activations (March 11 to April 30). The primary outcome was the ratio of true positive diagnoses of stroke relative to the total number of SCA in the 2 time periods. Results: Among the 212 SCA, 83 (39.2%) were from the pre-pandemic period, whereas 129 (60.8%) were from the pandemic period, 147 (69.3%) in the Emergency Department (ED) versus 65 (30.7%) in the inpatient service. In the ED cohort, a rapid decrease in the number of SCA at the beginning of the pandemic was followed by a gradual increase to pre-pandemic levels and a significant increase in the number of true positive strokes over time (44.2% vs 61.1%, p = 0.037). An increase in door-to-CT time (p = 0.001) and an increase in the rate of diagnostic error in patients admitted from the ED (p = 0.016) were also seen. The in-hospital cohort had a sustained decrease in the number of SCA following the pandemic declaration, with no difference in the rate of true positive stroke. Conclusions: We observed a rapid decline and slow recovery in ED SCA with a shift toward increased true positive cases following the Covid-19 pandemic. Also, delays in obtaining CT and diagnostic error was increased, however, no difference in early clinical outcomes were seen between groups.

No abstract