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 We report the interim results of a process improvement initiative at a comprehensive stroke center in which all tPA (tissue‐type plasminogen activator)–eligible patients were given tenecteplase for acute ischemic stroke. Methods We retrospectively analyzed a prospectively maintained single‐center registry of consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke treated at our comprehensive stroke center emergency department or transferred for further care. Patients treated with alteplase (tPA) before the process improvement initiative (October 2019–April 2020) were compared with those treated with tenecteplase (May 2020–July 2021). The primary efficacy outcome was the Target: Stroke Phase II recommendation of door‐to‐needle (DTN) time ≤45 minutes. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to estimate an independent effect of tenecteplase against DTN time ≤45 minutes. Two contemporaneous, negative controls (time to first emergency department antibiotic for patients who presented with infectious symptoms and door‐to‐groin puncture for thrombectomy) were evaluated to confirm DTN time was unrelated to emergency department and other stroke treatment throughput. Results Of the 113 included patients, 53 (47%) received tenecteplase. DTN time was significantly faster in patients treated with tenecteplase (median, 41 [interquartile range, 34–62] minutes versus 58 [interquartile range, 45–70] minutes; P <0.01), with no significant difference in symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (2% versus 7%; P =0.37). Despite the higher proportion of tPA patients being transferred for care (with slower DTN time), tenecteplase remained independently predictive of DTN time ≤45 minutes (adjusted odds ratio, 3.96; 95% CI, 1.58–9.91). There was no difference in time to first emergency department antibiotic ( P >0.05) or door‐to‐puncture ( P >0.05) when similar periods were compared. Conclusions Tenecteplase was associated with faster DTN time when compared with tPA in those with acute ischemic stroke. This can likely be attributed to the ease of single bolus administration of tenecteplase.

Introduction We have demonstrated in a multicenter cohort that the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a delay in intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) among stroke patients. Whether this delay contributes to meaningful short-term outcome differences in these patients warranted further exploration. Methods We conducted a nested observational cohort study of adult acute ischemic stroke patients receiving IVT from 9 comprehensive stroke centers across 7 U.S states. Patients admitted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (1/1/2019–02/29/2020) were compared to patients admitted during the early pandemic (3/1/2020–7/31/2020). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the effect of IVT delay on discharge to hospice or death, with treatment delay on admission during COVID-19 included as an interaction term. Results Of the 676 thrombolysed patients, the median age was 70 (IQR 58–81) years, 313 were female (46.3%), and the median NIHSS was 8 (IQR 4–16). Longer treatment delays were observed during COVID-19 (median 46 vs 38 min, p = 0.01) and were associated with higher in-hospital death/hospice discharge irrespective of admission period (OR per hour 1.08, 95% CI 1.01–1.17, p = 0.03). This effect was strengthened after multivariable adjustment (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.07–1.24, p < 0.001). There was no interaction of treatment delay on admission during COVID-19 ( p interaction = 0.65). Every one-hour delay in IVT was also associated with 7% lower odds of being discharged to home or acute inpatient rehabilitation facility (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89–0.97, p < 0.001). Conclusion Treatment delays observed during the COVID-19 pandemic led to greater early mortality and hospice care, with a lower probability of discharge to home/rehabilitation facility. There was no effect modification of treatment delay on admission during the pandemic, indicating that treatment delay at any time contributes similarly to these short-term outcomes.

IntroductionSmall studies have suggested that eptifibatide (EPT) may be safe in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) following intravenous thrombolysis or during endovascular therapy (EVT) for large vessel occlusion (LVO). However, studies are called upon to better delineate the safety of EPT use during EVT.MethodsA comprehensive stroke center registry (09/2015-12/2020) of consecutive adults who had undergone EVT for anterior LVO was queried. Patients treated with EPT were matched with 2 control groups based on known factors associated with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) risk - age, Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Score (ASPECTS), and number of thrombectomy passes. Safety outcomes (intracranial hemorrhage [ICH], parenchymal hematoma [PH-2] grade hemorrhagic transformation, symptomatic ICH [sICH]) and efficacy outcomes (TICI 2B/3 recanalization, 24-h National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score), were compared between matched groups using descriptive statistics. In addition, multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for an association between EPT and PH-1/PH-2 grade hemorrhages.ResultsA total of 162 patients were included, 54 of whom (33%) received EPT. The rate of ICH was similar between groups (p = 0.62), while PH-2 was significantly more frequent with EPT (16.7% EPT vs. 3.7 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.009), but without significant differences in sICH (5.6% EPT vs. 7.4 vs. 3.7%; p = 0.72). Rates of TICI Score ≥ 2B were nominally higher with EPT use (83.3 vs. 77.8 vs. 77.8%, p = 0.70). Between the EPT and control groups, there were no differences in 24-h NIHSS (p = 0.09) or 90-day mortality (p = 0.58). Our adjusted multivariate analysis identified that the number of passes (p &lt; 0.01), EPT use (p &lt; 0.01), and tandem occlusion (p = 0.03) were independent predictors of PH1/PH2 grade hemorrhage. Additionally, every unit increase in number of passes resulted in a 1.5 times greater odds of a high-grade hemorrhagic transformation in EPT-treated patients (adjusted OR = 1.594).ConclusionIn this single-center analysis, EPT use during EVT was associated with a significantly higher rate of PH1/PH2 grade hemorrhages, but not with differences in sICH, 24-h NIHSS, or 90-day mortality. Randomized prospective trials are needed to determine the safety and efficacy of EPT in this population.