Background and purposeA subset of ischaemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have ischaemic stroke despite anticoagulation. We sought to determine the association between prestroke anticoagulant therapy and recurrent ischaemic events and symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage (sICH).MethodsWe included consecutive patients with acute ischaemic stroke and AF from the Initiation of Anticoagulation after Cardioembolic stroke (IAC) study from eight comprehensive stroke centres in the USA. We compared recurrent ischaemic events and delayed sICH risk using adjusted Cox regression analyses between patients who were prescribed anticoagulation (ACp) versus patients who were naïve to anticoagulation therapy prior to the ischaemic stroke (anticoagulation naïve).ResultsAmong 2084 patients in IAC, 1518 had prior anticoagulation status recorded and were followed for 90 days. In adjusted Cox hazard models, ACp was associated with some evidence of a higher risk higher risk of 90-day recurrent ischaemic events only in the fully adjusted model (adjusted HR 1.50, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.28, p=0.058) but not increased risk of 90-day sICH (adjusted HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.51, p=0.862). In addition, switching anticoagulation class was not associated with reduced risk of recurrent ischaemic events (adjusted HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.12 to 1.33, p=0.136) nor sICH (adjusted HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.29 to 7.50, p=0.641).ConclusionAF patients with ischaemic stroke despite anticoagulation may have higher recurrent ischaemic event risk compared with anticoagulation-naïve patients. This suggests differing underlying pathomechanisms requiring different stroke prevention measures and identifying these mechanisms may improve secondary prevention strategies.

No abstract

Objective: Guidelines recommend initiating anticoagulation within 4 to 14 days after cardioembolic stroke. Data supporting this did not account for key factors potentially affecting the decision to initiate anticoagulation, such as infarct size, hemorrhagic transformation, or high-risk features on echocardiography. Methods: We pooled data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We included consecutive patients admitted with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation. The primary predictor was timing of initiating anticoagulation (0-3 days, 4-14 days, or >14 days), and outcomes were recurrent stroke/transient ischemic attack/systemic embolism, symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH), and major extracranial hemorrhage (ECH) within 90 days. Results: Among 2,084 patients, 1,289 met the inclusion criteria. The combined endpoint occurred in 10.1% (n = 130) subjects (87 ischemic events, 20 sICH, and 29 ECH). Overall, there was no significant difference in the composite endpoint between the 3 groups (0-3 days: 10.3%, 64/617; 4-14 days: 9.7%, 52/535; >14 days: 10.2%, 14/137; p = 0.933). In adjusted models, patients started on anticoagulation between 4 and 14 days did not have a lower rate of sICH (vs 0-3 days; odds ratio [OR] = 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50-4.43), nor did they have a lower rate of recurrent ischemic events (vs >14 days; OR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.36-1.62, p = 0.482). Interpretation: In this multicenter real-world cohort, the recommended (4-14 days) time frame to start oral anticoagulation was not associated with reduced ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes. Randomized trials are required to determine the optimal timing of anticoagulation initiation.

Background and Purpose: In patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation, treatment with low molecular weight heparin increases early hemorrhagic risk without reducing early recurrence, and there is limited data comparing warfarin to direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy. We aim to compare the effects of the treatments above on the risk of 90-day recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage. Methods: We included consecutive patients with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation from the IAC (Initiation of Anticoagulation after Cardioembolic) stroke study pooling data from stroke registries of 8 comprehensive stroke centers across the United States. We compared recurrent ischemic events and delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage between each of the following groups in separate Cox-regression analyses: (1) DOAC versus warfarin and (2) bridging with heparin/low molecular weight heparin versus no bridging, adjusting for pertinent confounders to test these associations. Results: We identified 1289 patients who met the bridging versus no bridging analysis inclusion criteria and 1251 patients who met the DOAC versus warfarin analysis inclusion criteria. In adjusted Cox-regression models, bridging (versus no bridging) treatment was associated with a high risk of delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.01–7.42]) but a similar rate of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 0.63–2.40]). Furthermore, DOAC (versus warfarin) treatment was associated with a lower risk of recurrent ischemic events (hazard ratio, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.29–0.87]) but not delayed symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.22–1.48]). Conclusions: Our study suggests that patients with ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation would benefit from the initiation of a DOAC without bridging therapy. Due to our study limitations, these findings should be interpreted with caution pending confirmation from large prospective studies.