Affects up to 1% of patients on oral anticoagulation per year, and is the most feared and devastating complication of this treatment. After such an event, it is unclear whether anticoagulant therapy should be resumed. Such a decision hinges upon the assessment of the competing risks of haematoma growth or recurrent ICH and thromboembolic events. ICH location and the risk for ischaemic cerebrovascular event seem to be the key factors that lead to risk/benefit balance of restarting anticoagulation after ICH.
Anticoagulation associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH).
Fernando et al. retrospectively analyzed a prospectively collected registry (2011-2016) and included consecutive adult patients from 2 hospitals admitted to ICU with intracranial hemorrhage. Patients were categorized on the basis of preadmission oral antiplatelet use. They excluded patients with preadmission anticoagulant use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and was analyzed using a multivariable logistic regression model. Contributors to total hospital costs were analyzed using a generalized linear model with log link and gamma distribution.
Of 720 included patients with intracranial hemorrhage, 107 (14.9%) had been using an oral antiplatelet agent at the time of ICU admission. Oral antiplatelet use was not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.31 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-2.22]). Evaluation of total costs also revealed no association with oral antiplatelet use (adjusted ratio of means [aROM]: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.82-1.02, P = .10]). Total cost among patients with intracranial hemorrhage was driven by illness severity (aROM: 1.96 [95% CI: 1.94-1.98], P < .001), increasing ICU length of stay (aROM: 1.05 [95% CI: 1.05-1.06], P < .001), and use of invasive mechanical ventilation (aROM: 1.76 [95% CI: 1.68-1.86], P < .001).
Among ICU patients admitted with intracranial hemorrhage, preadmission oral antiplatelet use was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality or hospital costs. These findings have important prognostic implications for clinicians who care for patients with intracranial hemorrhage 1)