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

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.

Primary central nervous system (CNS) marginal zone B‐cell lymphoma (MZBCL) arising from the dural meninges is a rare but indolent disease. This malignancy can present in various ways, hence making it difficult to diagnose. Biopsy results dictate an appropriate treatment plan, which commonly consists of a combination of surgical resection, whole brain radiotherapy and systemic therapy.