Why the study?
What is the role and timing of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or intracranial hemorrhage?
What is the role and timing of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or intracranial hemorrhage?
NOACs are preferred over warfarin in AF patients with prior stroke or ICH due to a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke, with specific timing rules for initiation and reintroduction.
NOACs may lower hemorrhagic stroke risk vs warfarin in prior-stroke AF; leaves open need for higher-level confirmation.
Patients with atrial fibrillation who had a previous transient ischemic attack or ischemic stroke had a significantly high risk of stroke recurrence and the introduction of oral anticoagulants should be mandatory. However, the long-term use of oral anticoagulants increases the risk of developing all types of intracranial hemorrhages. The advantages of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared to warfarin are that they have a significantly lower risk for hemorrhagic stroke. They are preferred in elderly patients, those with small vessel disease, or those with previous intracerebral hemorrhage. The time of NOACs introduction after an ischemic stroke depends on its severity and the rule "1-3-6-12" days should be applied. The reintroduction of NOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous intracerebral hemorrhage depends on its etiology and should be after about 4-8 weeks if the cardioembolic risk is high and the risk for intracranial hemorrhage small.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D Jovanović (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: