Health science reports · 2023
Antithrombotic treatment after intracerebral hemorrhage: Surveys among stroke physicians in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Forfang Elisabeth, Larsen Kristin Tveitan, Salman Rustam Al-Shahi, Bell Simon M, Wester Per, Berge Eivind, Wyller Torgeir Bruun, Rønning Ole Morten
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It is unclear whether patients with previous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) should receive antithrombotic treatment to prevent ischemic events. We assessed stroke physicians' opinions about this, and their views on randomizing patients in trials assessing this question.
METHODS: We conducted three web-based surveys among stroke physicians in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 205 stroke physicians (43%) responded to the Scandinavian survey, 161 of 180 (89%) to the UK antiplatelet survey, and 153 of 289 (53%) to the UK anticoagulant survey. In Scandinavia, 19 (21%) stroke physicians were uncertain about antiplatelet treatment after ICH for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and 21 (24%) for prior myocardial infarction. In the United Kingdom, 116 (77%) were uncertain for ischemic stroke or TIA and 115 (717%) for ischemic heart disease. In Scandinavia, 32 (36%) were uncertain about anticoagulant treatment after ICH for atrial fibrillation, and 26 (29%) for recurrent deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. In the United Kingdom, 145 (95%) were uncertain about anticoagulants after ICH in at least some cases. In both regions combined, 191 of 250 (76%) would consider randomizing ICH survivors in a trial of starting versus avoiding antiplatelets, and 176 of 242 (73%) in a trial of starting versus avoiding anticoagulants.
CONCLUSION: Considerable proportions of stroke physicians in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom were uncertain about antithrombotic treatment after ICH. A clear majority would consider randomizing patients in trials assessing this question. These findings support the need for such trials.
METHODS: We conducted three web-based surveys among stroke physicians in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom.
RESULTS: Eighty-nine of 205 stroke physicians (43%) responded to the Scandinavian survey, 161 of 180 (89%) to the UK antiplatelet survey, and 153 of 289 (53%) to the UK anticoagulant survey. In Scandinavia, 19 (21%) stroke physicians were uncertain about antiplatelet treatment after ICH for ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) and 21 (24%) for prior myocardial infarction. In the United Kingdom, 116 (77%) were uncertain for ischemic stroke or TIA and 115 (717%) for ischemic heart disease. In Scandinavia, 32 (36%) were uncertain about anticoagulant treatment after ICH for atrial fibrillation, and 26 (29%) for recurrent deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism. In the United Kingdom, 145 (95%) were uncertain about anticoagulants after ICH in at least some cases. In both regions combined, 191 of 250 (76%) would consider randomizing ICH survivors in a trial of starting versus avoiding antiplatelets, and 176 of 242 (73%) in a trial of starting versus avoiding anticoagulants.
CONCLUSION: Considerable proportions of stroke physicians in Scandinavia and the United Kingdom were uncertain about antithrombotic treatment after ICH. A clear majority would consider randomizing patients in trials assessing this question. These findings support the need for such trials.