先前使用抗血栓药物与脑出血后90天死亡率的关系。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2024-12-05 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CLEP.S493499
Christian Mistegård Jørgensen, Nils Jensen Boe, Stine Munk Hald, Frederik Meyer-Kristensen, Mie Micheelsen Norlén, Christian Ovesen, Sören Möller, Birgit Bjerre Høyer, Jonas Asgaard Bojsen, Mohammad Talal Elhakim, Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Larry B Goldstein, Jesper Hallas, Luis Alberto García Rodríguez, Magdy Selim, David Gaist
{"title":"先前使用抗血栓药物与脑出血后90天死亡率的关系。","authors":"Christian Mistegård Jørgensen, Nils Jensen Boe, Stine Munk Hald, Frederik Meyer-Kristensen, Mie Micheelsen Norlén, Christian Ovesen, Sören Möller, Birgit Bjerre Høyer, Jonas Asgaard Bojsen, Mohammad Talal Elhakim, Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Larry B Goldstein, Jesper Hallas, Luis Alberto García Rodríguez, Magdy Selim, David Gaist","doi":"10.2147/CLEP.S493499","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To estimate the strength of association between use of antithrombotics (AT) drugs with survival after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (s-ICH) comparing oral anticoagulant (OAC) or platelet antiaggregants (PA) with no AT use and in active comparator analyses OAC vs PA, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and clopidogrel vs aspirin.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We identified patients ≥55 years with a first-ever s-ICH between 2015 and 2018 in Southern Denmark (population 1.2 million). From this population, patients who had used an AT at the time of ICH were identified and classified as OAC or PA vs no AT (reference group), and for active comparator analyses as OAC vs PA (reference group), DOAC vs VKA (reference group), or clopidogrel vs aspirin (reference group). We calculated adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and corresponding [95% confidence intervals] for 90-day all-cause mortality with adjustments for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1043 patients who had s-ICH, 206 had used an OAC, 270 a PA, and 428 had no AT use. The adjusted 90-day mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.68 [1.39-2.02]) and PA-users (aRR 1.21 [1.03-1.42]), compared with no AT. Mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.19 [1.05-1.36]) vs PA-users. In analyses by antithrombotic drug type, 88 used a DOAC, 136 a VKA, 111 clopidogrel, and 177 aspirin. Mortality was lower among DOAC- vs VKA-users (aRR 0.82 [0.68-0.99]), but similar between clopidogrel vs aspirin users (aRR 1.04 [0.87-1.24]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this unselected cohort from a geographically defined Danish population, 90-day mortality after s-ICH was higher in patients with prior use of an OAC compared with no AT use or patients using a PA. Mortality was slightly lower for patients using a DOAC than a VKA. Mortality was also higher in PA- vs no AT-users, but there were no differences in mortality between clopidogrel vs aspirin.</p>","PeriodicalId":10362,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"16 ","pages":"837-848"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of Prior Antithrombotic Drug Use with 90-Day Mortality After Intracerebral Hemorrhage.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Mistegård Jørgensen, Nils Jensen Boe, Stine Munk Hald, Frederik Meyer-Kristensen, Mie Micheelsen Norlén, Christian Ovesen, Sören Möller, Birgit Bjerre Høyer, Jonas Asgaard Bojsen, Mohammad Talal Elhakim, Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman, Larry B Goldstein, Jesper Hallas, Luis Alberto García Rodríguez, Magdy Selim, David Gaist\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CLEP.S493499\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To estimate the strength of association between use of antithrombotics (AT) drugs with survival after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (s-ICH) comparing oral anticoagulant (OAC) or platelet antiaggregants (PA) with no AT use and in active comparator analyses OAC vs PA, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and clopidogrel vs aspirin.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We identified patients ≥55 years with a first-ever s-ICH between 2015 and 2018 in Southern Denmark (population 1.2 million). From this population, patients who had used an AT at the time of ICH were identified and classified as OAC or PA vs no AT (reference group), and for active comparator analyses as OAC vs PA (reference group), DOAC vs VKA (reference group), or clopidogrel vs aspirin (reference group). We calculated adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and corresponding [95% confidence intervals] for 90-day all-cause mortality with adjustments for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1043 patients who had s-ICH, 206 had used an OAC, 270 a PA, and 428 had no AT use. The adjusted 90-day mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.68 [1.39-2.02]) and PA-users (aRR 1.21 [1.03-1.42]), compared with no AT. Mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.19 [1.05-1.36]) vs PA-users. In analyses by antithrombotic drug type, 88 used a DOAC, 136 a VKA, 111 clopidogrel, and 177 aspirin. Mortality was lower among DOAC- vs VKA-users (aRR 0.82 [0.68-0.99]), but similar between clopidogrel vs aspirin users (aRR 1.04 [0.87-1.24]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this unselected cohort from a geographically defined Danish population, 90-day mortality after s-ICH was higher in patients with prior use of an OAC compared with no AT use or patients using a PA. Mortality was slightly lower for patients using a DOAC than a VKA. Mortality was also higher in PA- vs no AT-users, but there were no differences in mortality between clopidogrel vs aspirin.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10362,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"837-848\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11627103/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S493499\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S493499","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较口服抗凝剂(OAC)或血小板抗聚集剂(PA)与不使用抗凝剂的自发性脑出血(s-ICH)患者生存率之间的相关性,并对OAC与PA、直接口服抗凝剂(DOAC)与维生素K拮抗剂(VKA)、氯吡格雷与阿司匹林进行活性比较分析。患者和方法:我们在丹麦南部(人口120万)确定了2015年至2018年间首次发生s-ICH的患者≥55岁。从这一人群中,识别出在脑出血时使用过AT的患者,并将其分类为OAC或PA与未使用AT(参照组),并对活性比较物分析为OAC与PA(参照组),DOAC与VKA(参照组),或氯吡格雷与阿司匹林(参照组)。我们计算了90天全因死亡率的校正相对危险度(arr)和相应的[95%置信区间],并对潜在混杂因素进行了校正。结果:1043例s-ICH患者中,206例使用了OAC, 270例使用了PA, 428例未使用AT。OAC-使用者(aRR 1.68[1.39-2.02])和pa -使用者(aRR 1.21[1.03-1.42])的调整后90天死亡率高于无AT者。OAC-组的死亡率高于pa -组(aRR 1.19[1.05-1.36])。在抗血栓药物类型分析中,88人使用DOAC, 136人使用VKA, 111人使用氯吡格雷,177人使用阿司匹林。DOAC与vka使用者的死亡率较低(aRR 0.82[0.68-0.99]),但氯吡格雷与阿司匹林使用者的死亡率相似(aRR 1.04[0.87-1.24])。结论:在这个来自地理上确定的丹麦人群的未选择队列中,先前使用OAC的患者与未使用AT或使用PA的患者相比,s-ICH后90天死亡率更高。使用DOAC的患者死亡率略低于使用VKA的患者。PA使用者与不使用at者的死亡率也更高,但氯吡格雷与阿司匹林的死亡率没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Association of Prior Antithrombotic Drug Use with 90-Day Mortality After Intracerebral Hemorrhage.

Purpose: To estimate the strength of association between use of antithrombotics (AT) drugs with survival after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (s-ICH) comparing oral anticoagulant (OAC) or platelet antiaggregants (PA) with no AT use and in active comparator analyses OAC vs PA, direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA), and clopidogrel vs aspirin.

Patients and methods: We identified patients ≥55 years with a first-ever s-ICH between 2015 and 2018 in Southern Denmark (population 1.2 million). From this population, patients who had used an AT at the time of ICH were identified and classified as OAC or PA vs no AT (reference group), and for active comparator analyses as OAC vs PA (reference group), DOAC vs VKA (reference group), or clopidogrel vs aspirin (reference group). We calculated adjusted relative risks (aRRs) and corresponding [95% confidence intervals] for 90-day all-cause mortality with adjustments for potential confounders.

Results: Among 1043 patients who had s-ICH, 206 had used an OAC, 270 a PA, and 428 had no AT use. The adjusted 90-day mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.68 [1.39-2.02]) and PA-users (aRR 1.21 [1.03-1.42]), compared with no AT. Mortality was higher in OAC- (aRR 1.19 [1.05-1.36]) vs PA-users. In analyses by antithrombotic drug type, 88 used a DOAC, 136 a VKA, 111 clopidogrel, and 177 aspirin. Mortality was lower among DOAC- vs VKA-users (aRR 0.82 [0.68-0.99]), but similar between clopidogrel vs aspirin users (aRR 1.04 [0.87-1.24]).

Conclusion: In this unselected cohort from a geographically defined Danish population, 90-day mortality after s-ICH was higher in patients with prior use of an OAC compared with no AT use or patients using a PA. Mortality was slightly lower for patients using a DOAC than a VKA. Mortality was also higher in PA- vs no AT-users, but there were no differences in mortality between clopidogrel vs aspirin.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology
Clinical Epidemiology Medicine-Epidemiology
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
169
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal. Clinical Epidemiology focuses on the application of epidemiological principles and questions relating to patients and clinical care in terms of prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. Clinical Epidemiology welcomes papers covering these topics in form of original research and systematic reviews. Clinical Epidemiology has a special interest in international electronic medical patient records and other routine health care data, especially as applied to safety of medical interventions, clinical utility of diagnostic procedures, understanding short- and long-term clinical course of diseases, clinical epidemiological and biostatistical methods, and systematic reviews. When considering submission of a paper utilizing publicly-available data, authors should ensure that such studies add significantly to the body of knowledge and that they use appropriate validated methods for identifying health outcomes. The journal has launched special series describing existing data sources for clinical epidemiology, international health care systems and validation studies of algorithms based on databases and registries.
期刊最新文献
Impact of Population-Based Screening for Diabetes and Prediabetes Among 67-Year-Olds Using Point-of-Care HbA1c on Healthcare Ultilisation, Results from the VISP Cohort. Response to "A Validation Study of the Danish ICD-10 Diagnosis Code K75.0 for Pyogenic Liver Abscess" [Letter]. Diagnostic Accuracy of Non-Invasive Diagnostic Tests for Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Feedback on "Recording of Alcohol Use Disorder in Electronic Health Records: Developing a Recommended Codelist for Research" [Letter]. Increased Mortality After Lower Extremity Amputation in a Danish Nationwide Cohort: The Mediating Role of Postoperative Complications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1