Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background and aims

Many patients with prior intracerebral haemorrhage have indications for antithrombotic treatment with antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs for prevention of ischaemic events, but it is uncertain whether such treatment is beneficial after intracerebral haemorrhage. STudy of Antithrombotic Treatment after IntraCerebral Haemorrhage will assess (i) the effects of long-term antithrombotic treatment on the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and occlusive vascular events after intracerebral haemorrhage and (ii) whether imaging findings, like cerebral microbleeds, modify these effects.

Methods

STudy of Antithrombotic Treatment after IntraCerebral Haemorrhage is a multicentre, randomised controlled, open trial of starting versus avoiding antithrombotic treatment after non-traumatic intracerebral haemorrhage, in patients with an indication for antithrombotic treatment. Participants with vascular disease as an indication for antiplatelet treatment are randomly allocated to antiplatelet treatment or no antithrombotic treatment. Participants with atrial fibrillation as an indication for anticoagulant treatment are randomly allocated to anticoagulant treatment or no anticoagulant treatment. Cerebral CT or MRI is performed before randomisation. Duration of follow-up is at least two years. The primary outcome is recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. Secondary outcomes include occlusive vascular events and death. Assessment of clinical outcomes is performed blinded to treatment allocation. Target recruitment is 500 participants.

Trial status: Recruitment to STudy of Antithrombotic Treatment after IntraCerebral Haemorrhage is on-going. On 30 April 2020, 44 participants had been enrolled in 31 participating hospitals. An individual patient–data meta-analysis is planned with similar randomised trials.

Keywords

Intracerebral haemorrhage antithrombotic treatment secondary prevention ischaemic events randomised controlled trial antiplatelet anticoagulant atrial fibrillation stroke

Background and aims

Antithrombotic treatment is well-established for patients without prior intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH): antiplatelet drugs for the prevention of serious vascular events in patients with vascular disease^1,2 and anticoagulant drugs to prevent systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation,^3,4 among other indications. However, antithrombotic drugs increase the risk of bleeding and ICH is the most severe and feared complication. Forty percent of patients suffering from ICH die within the first month and more than half the survivors become dependent on help from others.⁵

The annual risk of ICH recurrence is estimated to be 1.8–7.4%,⁶ but in the long term, these patients are at even higher risk of ischaemic events like myocardial infarction and ischaemic stroke.^7,8 A substantial proportion of patients presenting with ICH are on antithrombotic treatment: a quarter use anticoagulant drugs,^9,10 and more than one-third use antiplatelet drugs.^11,12 Overall, 40–50% use, or have an indication for, antithrombotic treatment.^8,13 After the acute phase of the ICH, the physician must decide whether to resume the antithrombotic drug or not. However, preventing a possibly devastating ischaemic event with a drug that might cause a new ICH creates a clinical dilemma because the safety of antithrombotic drugs is unknown in patients with prior ICH. Guidelines do not make clear recommendations about this,^14–16 both policies occur in standard clinical practice,^17–19 and clinical equipoise is demonstrated in surveys in the UK and Scandinavia.²⁰

Until recently, no randomised controlled trials have assessed effects of long-term antithrombotic treatment after ICH.²¹ Observational studies have investigated the safety of antiplatelet^18,22–28 and anticoagulant^8,29–38 treatment after different types of intracranial haemorrhage including ICH. Overall, in these studies, antithrombotic drugs were not associated with an increased risk of recurrent ICH. However, associations with the risk of ischaemic events varied, most of the studies were small, and they were prone to selection bias and confounding by indication.

Recently, the RESTART randomised controlled trial of 537 patients investigated effects of antiplatelet treatment after ICH.³⁹ During a median follow-up period of two years, RESTART did not show an increase in the rate of recurrent ICH from antiplatelet drugs, but on the contrary a non-significant reduction in the risk of recurrent ICH (adjusted hazard ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.25–1.03; p = 0.060). The RESTART results are reassuring for antiplatelet treatment but need to be confirmed by other randomised trials.

The recently presented NASPAF-ICH trial (Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Previous Intracerebral Hemorrhage Study) randomised 30 participants with atrial fibrillation and previous ICH to Non-Vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants versus Aspirin.⁴⁰ The primary feasibility outcome was recruitment rate, which was 3.1 participants/site/year. During a mean follow-up period of 1.53 years, no recurrent ICH occurred. However, this was a phase II feasibility trial, too small to draw conclusions about clinical outcome data. More evidence is needed to guide both anticoagulant and antiplatelet treatment after ICH.

It is also uncertain whether one should give or avoid antithrombotic treatment in ICH patients with many cerebral microbleeds or cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA), who at the same time have a high risk of ischaemic events. Cerebral microbleeds are associated with increased risk of ICH,^41–43 but also with increased risk of ischaemic stroke.^41,44 Lobar microbleeds might indicate CAA, which is also associated with a higher ICH recurrence rate.⁴⁵ However, in a cohort study of 1012 patients with atrial fibrillation and prior ICH, even those who fulfilled criteria for possible or probable CAA showed an association between resuming anticoagulation and better outcome on mortality and functional status.³⁶ The interaction between these imaging findings and the effects of antithrombotic treatment is still unknown.

The primary aim of STudy of Antithrombotic Treatment after IntraCerebral Haemorrhage (STATICH) is to assess the effects of antithrombotic drugs on the risk of recurrent ICH and occlusive vascular events after ICH. The secondary aim is to assess whether brain imaging findings, like cerebral microbleeds, modify the effects of antithrombotic treatment after ICH.

Methods

Trial design and overview

STATICH is a Scandinavian, investigator-led, multicentre, randomised controlled, open trial of antithrombotic treatment for prevention of ischaemic disease in patients with prior ICH. The trial is conducted according to Good Clinical Practice and The Declaration of Helsinki. Regulatory agencies and ethics committees in the three participating countries have approved the trial. The EudraCT number is 2014–002636-13 and the ClinicalTrials.gov number is NCT03186729.

Patient population and consent

Participants are recruited during hospital admission or in an outpatient clinic. Patients are eligible for the trial if they are 18 years old or more, have had a prior non-traumatic ICH minimum one day ago and have an indication for antithrombotic treatment for prevention of ischaemic events. There must be no preceding traumatic brain injury or underlying structural cause of the ICH, defined as tumour, aneurysm, vascular malformation, intracerebral venous thrombosis or haemorrhagic transformation of an ischaemic stroke. There must be no compelling indication for antithrombotic treatment (e.g. recent coronary artery stenting or prosthetic metallic heart valve). Detailed eligibility criteria are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Eligibility criteria.

Inclusion criteria
• Patient age ≥18 years
• Non-traumatic, primary intracerebral haemorrhage ≥24 hours ago, and:
• No preceding traumatic brain injury, based on history from the patient/witness of spontaneous symptom onset, and brain imaging appearances consistent of spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (i.e. any brain/bone/soft tissue appearances of trauma must have occurred secondary to a spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage)
• No underlying structural cause (e.g. aneurysm, tumour, arteriovenous malformation, intracerebral venous thrombosis, or haemorrhagic transformation of an ischaemic stroke)
• Patient has indication for antithrombotic (i.e. anticoagulant or antiplatelet) drug for the prevention of ischaemic events, either antiplatelet drugs for patients with vascular disease, or anticoagulant drug for patients with atrial fibrillation. Indication for antiplatelet drugs can be previous ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, other occlusive arterial disease, or arterial stents or other arterial implants (secondary prevention), or patients with known significant atherosclerotic arterial disease, such as carotid or coronary artery stenosis or mobile aortic atheroma (primary prevention)
• Consent to randomisation from the patient (or personal/legal/professional representative, if the patient does not have mental capacity to give consent, and waiver of consent is acceptable in the patient’s country)
• CT and/or MRI is performed before randomisation
Exclusion criteria
• Clear indication for antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatment (e.g. recent coronary artery stenting, or prosthetic metallic heart valves)
• Contraindications to the antithrombotic drug that will be administered
• Patient is pregnant, breastfeeding or of childbearing potential and not using contraception. A woman of childbearing potential must undergo a pregnancy test before randomisation and the result must be recorded in the case report form. Women of childbearing potential randomised to active treatment must use effective methods of contraception and undergo regular pregnancy testing during follow-up, and the results must be recorded in the case report forms.
• For MRI examination: Contraindication to the brain MRI
• Malignancy with life expectancy less than two years

Written informed consent is obtained from the participant by the treating physician before enrolment. If the participant lacks capacity to consent, consent is obtained from the participant’s legal representative, if this is accepted in the respective country. If such a participant regains capacity to consent a later stage, written informed consent is then obtained from the participant.

Imaging

All participants have cerebral MRI or CT scans performed in relation to the qualifying ICH, but before randomisation, if there are no contraindications. For the MRI scan, susceptibility-weighted imaging sequence(s), T1, T2 and FLAIR images in a 3 T MRI scanner are preferred, but a standard MRI stroke protocol in a 1.5 T MRI scanner is acceptable. All cerebral CT and MRI scans performed after the qualifying event and before the time of randomisation are sent on CD ROM to the Trial Co-ordinating Centre in DICOM viewer format. In selected hospitals, participants will undergo a new cerebral MRI scan after two years, to enable assessment of how antithrombotic treatment affects the development of different imaging findings. Two radiologists, blinded to treatment allocation, will independently interpret the CT and MRI scans according to pre-specified criteria.

Randomisation and intervention

The intervention is treatment with an antithrombotic drug. The control is a policy of avoiding these drugs. Participants with vascular disease and indication for antiplatelet treatment are randomised to starting antiplatelet treatment or avoiding antithrombotic treatment altogether. Participants with atrial fibrillation and an indication for anticoagulant treatment are randomised to starting anticoagulant treatment or avoiding anticoagulant treatment (which may include antiplatelet drugs or left atrial appendage occlusion; Figure 1, flowchart).

Figure 1.

STATICH flowchart.

Randomisation is performed by a web-based, central randomisation system that allocates the participants to intervention or control, according to a minimisation algorithm without a pre-determined sequence. The algorithm prevents predictable alternation of allocation by randomly allocating the first participant with a probability of 0.5 to one of the arms. Adaptive stratification is used to allocate each subsequent participant with a probability of 0.8 to the arm that minimises the difference between the arms, with respect to baseline characteristics in the previously randomised participants. Treatment allocation for an individual participant is revealed only after the baseline data are submitted, and is open to participants, treating physicians and local research staff, as well as personnel in the Trial Co-ordinating Centre assessing protocol adherence. The dedicated personnel recording clinical outcome events are blinded to treatment allocation. The central Event Adjudication Committee that evaluates all outcome events is also blinded to treatment allocation.

The timing of randomisation after the qualifying ICH is up to the treating physician. If the participant is allocated to an antithrombotic drug, the drug should be initiated within 24 h after randomisation. For participants allocated to treatment, the treating physician is responsible for choosing the type and dose of the antithrombotic drug, in accordance with standard clinical practice.

Follow-up

Participants receive a patient card containing the study code, the name of the Sponsor and the telephone number to the Trial Co-ordinating Centre. When a participant is included, and thereafter at six months’ intervals, the national Co-ordinating Centre sends a letter to the participant and the general practitioner to remind them of the treatment allocation. The participant is contacted by the national Co-ordinating Centre at one month and every six months for at least two years after randomisation by telephone. The focus is the participant’s safety, any adverse events and adherence to the protocol. Recording of adherence and outcomes is done by structured interviews with the participant, his/her nearest relative and/or the general practitioner, and by collecting data from medical records. If a participant develops any exclusion criteria, withdrawal from the allocated treatment may be considered. The follow-up schedule continues for all randomised participants, unless they choose to withdraw from follow-up. The pre-determined duration of follow-up for the primary/secondary outcomes is two years.

Follow-up at 5 and 10 years will occur by telephone interviews with participants, collection of data from medical records and linkage with participants’ data in national registers, to determine long-term survival and risk of vascular events.

Co-enrolment into other trials during follow-up is allowed by the chief investigator, if no interaction between trial interventions can be expected, and co-enrolment does not interfere with follow-up in STATICH.

Assessment of outcome events

The primary outcome is occurrence of new, symptomatic ICH over at least two years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes are other intracranial haemorrhagic events, major and minor extracranial haemorrhagic events, occlusive vascular events (transient ischaemic attack, ischaemic stroke, unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial occlusion, mesenteric ischaemia, central retinal arterial occlusion, revascularisation procedures (carotid, coronary, peripheral arterial), symptomatic deep vein thrombosis and symptomatic pulmonary embolism), vascular death, all-cause death and functional status according to the modified Rankin Scale (Table 2). Data collection forms used in the trial are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Table 2.

Outcome events.

Primary outcome
Fatal or non-fatal symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (neurological deterioration or death associated with intracerebral haemorrhage found on CT scan, MRI scan, or by autopsy) over at least two years of follow-up
Secondary outcomes
• Occlusive vascular events: transient ischaemic attack (requiring hospitalisation), ischaemic stroke, unstable angina (requiring revascularisation), acute myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial occlusion, mesenteric ischaemia, central retinal arterial occlusion, revascularisation procedures (carotid, coronary, peripheral arterial) symptomatic deep vein thrombosis or symptomatic pulmonary embolism
• Symptomatic (spontaneous or traumatic) epidural, subdural or subarachnoid haemorrhage
• Major extracranial bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH-criteria⁵⁰):
1. Fatal bleeding, and/or
2. Symptomatic bleeding in a critical area or organ, such as intracranial, intraspinal, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intra-articular or pericardial or intramuscular with compartment syndrome, and/or
3. Bleeding causing a fall in haemoglobin level of 20 g/L (1.24 mmol/L) or more, or leading to transfusion of two or more units of whole blood or red cells.
• Clinically relevant non-major bleeding (ISTH-criteria⁵¹):
1. Requiring medical intervention by a healthcare professional, or
2. Leading to hospitalisation or increased level of care, or
3. Prompting a face to face (i.e. not just a telephone or electronic communication) evaluation
• Vascular death
• Death from any cause
• Functional status (according to the modified Rankin Scale) at two years

Subgroup analyses

Relevant subgroups are those defined by age, type of antithrombotic drug, timing of treatment initiation and haemorrhage location. For participants randomised to anticoagulants versus control, relevant subgroups also include CHA₂DS₂VASc score⁴⁶ and HAS-BLED score.⁴⁷ Pre-specified subgroup analyses will also examine possible interactions between imaging findings, like cerebral microbleeds, and effects of antithrombotic treatment on the risk of recurrent ICH.

Statistical considerations

The risk of ICH recurrence is estimated to be 1.8–7.4% per year.⁶ There is uncertainty about the relative increase in the risk of recurrent ICH on antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs, but observational studies indicate no increased risk of recurrent haemorrhage compared to not taking antithrombotic drugs.^8,18,22–38 A fourfold increase in the risk of recurrent ICH on antithrombotic drugs (from about 2% to 8%) would be considered unacceptable and higher than any plausible effect antithrombotic drugs would have on ischaemic events. With 500 participants randomised to antiplatelets versus control, or to anticoagulants versus control, STATICH will have more than 80% power at the 5% significance level to detect such a difference. STATICH aims to randomise 500 participants to antiplatelets versus control, and more than 50 participants to anticoagulants versus control. Information from the latter will be used to assess the plausibility of a net benefit in a larger main study. These sample size calculations were made before results from the RESTART trial were reported and are therefore based on prior assumptions. The target sample size and inclusion period will be reviewed and adjusted by the Trial Steering Committee based on overall data (not by treatment group) on primary outcome events, the number of participants in pre-specified subgroups and completeness of follow-up.

The primary analysis will be restricted to the primary outcome and performed separately for the antiplatelet and anticoagulant part of the trial. Subgroup analyses will be performed for the primary outcome and interactions will be tested, if appropriate. Secondary analyses will be performed for the secondary outcomes. All participants will be included in the analyses. To retain the benefit of randomisation, all participants will be analysed according to the ‘intention to treat’ principle, i.e. in the group to which they were allocated, irrespective of whether they adhere to the allocated treatment. We intend to publish a separate statistical analysis plan before the follow-up is complete and the data base is locked.

Safety

STATICH is a pragmatic trial, investigating which of two forms of standard clinical care is most beneficial. The drugs are well-known and used for standard indications. Data on outcomes and serious adverse events are routinely collected and evaluated. Procedures for management of adverse drug reactions are specified in the standard operating procedures. In case of an unexpected serious adverse event (SUSAR), the Trial Co-ordinating Centre should be notified immediately. Sponsor will report the SUSAR in an expedited manner to the authorities according to the applicable regulatory requirements. The Data Monitoring Committee will perform un-blinded reviews of outcome events in all participants and in the pre-specified subgroups during the trial. The committee will also perform an un-blinded interim analysis of the primary outcome variable when half the participants have been included.

Data quality

The trial will be monitored according to the risk assessment. Monitoring will be independent from investigators and Sponsor. The central randomisation system checks eligibility for all participants. To facilitate protocol adherence and fulfilling of the trial’s objectives, there will be frequent telephone contacts between the Trial Co-ordinating Centre and participating hospitals.

Study organisation

Oslo University Hospital is the Sponsor. The Director of Research acts as the Sponsor’s legal representative. The Trial Co-ordinating Centre is hosted within the Stroke Research Group at Oslo University Hospital (Ullevål). The Trial Co-ordinating Centre works in close collaboration with the Trial Imaging Centre at Akershus University Hospital, and with National Co-ordinating Centres in Sweden and Denmark. The STATICH Study Group comprises all hospitals participating in the trial. A list of all participating hospitals is available from the corresponding author on request.

Publication policy

The primary results of the trial will be published in international peer reviewed journals, presented at international scientific meetings, and communicated as popular science articles in public media.

Current trial status

The current protocol version is dated 05 March 2020. Important protocol modifications are communicated to relevant parties during the trial. Recruitment started in June 2018 and is on-going. On 30 April 2020, a total of 44 participants had been randomised in 31 participating hospitals: 21 to antiplatelets versus control, and 23 to anticoagulants versus control.

Discussion

Randomised controlled trials assessing effects of long-term antithrombotic treatment after ICH are needed for several reasons. First, it is likely that antithrombotic treatment prevents ischaemic events even after ICH, but these patients were not included in previous randomised trials of antithrombotic treatment, and the effect of these drugs on the risk of recurrent ICH is uncertain. Second, although observational studies have not shown an association between antithrombotic treatment and increased risk of recurrent ICH,^8,18,22–38 observational studies are insufficient to guide this treatment decision. Third, guidelines vary, and there is evidence of clinical equipoise about the use of antithrombotic treatment after ICH in clinical practice. Recruitment to STATICH might be hampered by the physician’s assessment of patient frailty and short life expectancy after ICH. However, many of the long-term survivors after ICH live functionally independent lives⁴⁸ and need optimised prevention of vascular disease.

The recently published RESTART randomised trial showed that restarting antiplatelet treatment at a median of 76 days after ICH might halve the risk of recurrent ICH.³⁹ These results were opposite to prior expectations and their reproducibility should be investigated in other randomised trials. Furthermore, RESTART did not identify any harmful effects from antiplatelet treatment in the subgroups with lobar haemorrhage or cerebral microbleeds of different patterns.⁴⁹ The subgroups were small and more data are needed, but the results permit inclusion of patients with a variety of imaging findings into other randomised trials.

In addition to RESTART and STATICH, only one other trial is currently assessing effects of antiplatelet treatment after ICH (RESTART France, NCT02966119), to our knowledge. Anticoagulant treatment after ICH is being investigated by several other on-going trials: APACHE-AF (NCT02565693), SOSTART (NCT03153150), A3ICH (NCT03243175), ENRICH-AF (NCT03950076), ASPIRE (NCT03907046) and PRESTIGE-AF (NCT03996772), in addition to the completed NASPAF-ICH feasibility trial. Data from – hopefully – all these trials will be combined with results from STATICH in a prospectively planned, individual patient–data meta-analysis. This meta-analysis aims to provide statistical power to evaluate both the overall effects of antithrombotic treatment after ICH, as well as the effects in subgroups of patients, e.g. by ICH location and other brain imaging findings.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: JP has served on a scientific advisory board for and received lecture fees from Bayer. CK has received lecture fees from Novo Nordic and Bristol-Myers Squibb Denmark. The other authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: STATICH has received funding from Oslo University Hospital, Umeå University, Västerbottens Läns Landsting, Simon Fougner Hartmanns Familiefond, A.P. Møller og Hustru Chastine Mc-Kinney Møllers Fond til almene Formaal, and Novo Nordic Foundation (grant NNF18OK0031840). The funding sources have no role in the trial design, data collection, analysis or interpretation of the data, writing of the manuscript or presentation of the results.

Ethical approval

Ethics committees in the three participating countries have approved the trial.

Informed consent

Written informed consent is obtained from the participants or from their legally authorised representatives (if waiver of consent is acceptable in the participant’s country) before inclusion in the trial.

Guarantor

OMR.

Trial registration

The EudraCT number is 2014–002636-13 and the ClinicalTrials.gov number is NCT03186729.

Contributorship

EB, OMR, RA-SS and EF conceived and designed the trial. EB, OMR and EF wrote the first version of the study protocol. All authors contributed to further protocol development. EB and EF contacted national co-ordinating investigators. EB, OMR, EF, JP, ELG and CK gained approvals from authorities. EB, EF, OMR, KTL, JP, ELG and CK obtained funding. EB, RA-SS, EF and KTL contributed to the development of the randomisation system. EB, KTL, JP, ELG and CK initiated participating hospitals. EB, KTL, JP, ELG, CK, PW, HIH, MC and OMR contributed to participant recruitment. KTL drafted the first version of the manuscript. All authors (except EB) critically reviewed and approved the final version.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all participating hospitals and local investigators for contributing to STATICH. We would also like to thank Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit for development of the randomisation system. STATICH was initiated by our dear friend and colleague, Professor Eivind Berge, who sadly died on 6 February 2020.

ORCID iDs

Kristin Tveitan Larsen

Ole Morten Rønning

References

Antithrombotic Trialists Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 2002; 324: 71–86.

Baigent

Blackwell

Collins

, et al. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet 2009; 373: 1849–1860.

Hart

Pearce

Aguilar

MI.

Meta-analysis: antithrombotic therapy to prevent stroke in patients who have nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 857–867.

Ruff

Giugliano

Braunwald

, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2014; 383: 955–962.

van Asch

Luitse

Rinkel

, et al. Incidence, case fatality, and functional outcome of intracerebral haemorrhage over time, according to age, sex, and ethnic origin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2010; 9: 167–176.

Poon

Fonville

Al-Shahi Salman

Long-term prognosis after intracerebral haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 2014; 85: 660–667.

Casolla

Moulin

Kyheng

, et al. Five-year risk of major ischemic and hemorrhagic events after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2019; 50: 1100–1107.

Ottosen

Grijota

Hansen

, et al. Use of antithrombotic therapy and long-term clinical outcome among patients surviving intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2016; 47: 1837–1843.

Flaherty

Kissela

Woo

, et al. The increasing incidence of anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2007; 68: 116–121.

10.

Schols

Schreuder

van Raak

, et al. Incidence of oral anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage in the Netherlands. Stroke 2014; 45: 268–270.

11.

Khan

Siddiqui

Goldstein

, et al. Association between previous use of antiplatelet therapy and intracerebral hemorrhage outcomes. Stroke 2017; 48: 1810–1817.

12.

Bejot

Cordonnier

Durier

, et al. Intracerebral haemorrhage profiles are changing: results from the Dijon population-based study. Brain 2013; 136: 658–664.

13.

Lovelock

Molyneux

Rothwell

PM.

Change in incidence and aetiology of intracerebral haemorrhage in Oxfordshire, UK, between 1981 and 2006: a population-based study. Lancet Neurol 2007; 6: 487–493.

14.

Steiner

Al-Shahi Salman

Beer

, et al. European Stroke Organisation (ESO) guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. Int J Stroke 2014; 9: 840–855.

15.

Hemphill

Greenberg

Anderson

, et al. Guidelines for the management of spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage. A guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association . Stroke 2015; 46: 2032–2060.

16.

Klijn

Paciaroni

Berge

, et al. Antithrombotic treatment for secondary prevention of stroke and other thromboembolic events in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack and non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a European Stroke Organisation guideline. Eur Stroke J 2019; 4: 198–223.

17.

Pasquini

Charidimou

van Asch

, et al. Variation in restarting antithrombotic drugs at hospital discharge after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2014; 45: 2643–2648.

18.

Viswanathan

Rakich

Engel

, et al. Antiplatelet use after intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurology 2006; 66: 206–209.

19.

Pennlert

Asplund

Carlberg

, et al. Antithrombotic treatment following intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Stroke 2015; 46: 2094–2099.

20.

Forfang

Bell

Berge

, et al. Oral anticoagulation after intracranial haemorrhage: results of surveys among stroke physicians (Poster Abstract). Eur Stroke J 2016; 1: 3–612.

21.

Perry

Berge

Bowditch

, et al. Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 5: Cd012144.

22.

Biffi

Halpin

Towfighi

, et al. Aspirin and recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage in cerebral amyloid angiopathy. Neurology 2010; 75: 693–698.

23.

Chong

Chan

Pong

, et al. Use of aspirin in Chinese after recovery from primary intracranial haemorrhage. Thromb Haemost 2012; 107: 241–247.

24.

Flynn

MacDonald

Murray

, et al. Prescribing antiplatelet medicine and subsequent events after intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 2010; 41: 2606–2611.

25.

Teo

Lau

GKK

Mak

RHY

, et al. Antiplatelet resumption after antiplatelet-related intracerebral hemorrhage: a retrospective hospital-based study. World Neurosurg 2017; 106: 85–91.

26.

Ding

Liu

Tan

, et al. Resumption of antiplatelet therapy in patients with primary intracranial hemorrhage-benefits and risks: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. J Neurol Sci 2018; 384: 133–138.

27.

Gonzalez-Perez

Gaist

de Abajo

, et al. Low-dose aspirin after an episode of haemorrhagic stroke is associated with improved survival. Thromb Haemost 2017; 117: 2396–2405.

28.

Chen

Ding

Buell

, et al. Restarting antiplatelet therapy after spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage: functional outcomes. Neurology 2018; 91: e26–e36.

29.

Majeed

Kim

Roberts

, et al. Optimal timing of resumption of warfarin after intracranial hemorrhage. Stroke 2010; 41: 2860–2866.

30.

Claassen

Kazemi

Zubkov

, et al. Restarting anticoagulation therapy after warfarin-associated intracerebral hemorrhage. Arch Neurol 2008; 65: 1313–1318.

31.

Yung

Kapral

Asllani

, et al. Reinitiation of anticoagulation after warfarin-associated intracranial hemorrhage and mortality risk: the Best Practice for Reinitiating Anticoagulation Therapy After Intracranial Bleeding (BRAIN) study. Can J Cardiol 2012; 28: 33–39.

32.

Nielsen

Larsen

Skjoth

, et al. Restarting anticoagulant treatment after intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation and the impact on recurrent stroke, mortality, and bleeding: a nationwide cohort study. Circulation 2015; 132: 517–525.

33.

Kuramatsu

Gerner

Schellinger

, et al. Anticoagulant reversal, blood pressure levels, and anticoagulant resumption in patients with anticoagulation-related intracerebral hemorrhage. JAMA 2015; 313: 824–836.

34.

Chao

Liu

Liao

, et al. Use of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation who have a history of intracranial hemorrhage. Circulation 2016; 133: 1540–1547.

35.

Poli

Antonucci

Dentali

, et al. Recurrence of ICH after resumption of anticoagulation with VK antagonists: CHIRONE study. Neurology 2014; 82: 1020–1026.

36.

Biffi

Kuramatsu

Leasure

, et al. Oral anticoagulation and functional outcome after intracerebral hemorrhage. Ann Neurol 2017; 82: 755–765.

37.

Murthy

Gupta

Merkler

, et al. Restarting anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2017; 48: 1594–1600.

38.

Korompoki

Filippidis

Nielsen

, et al. Long-term antithrombotic treatment in intracranial hemorrhage survivors with atrial fibrillation. Neurology 2017; 89: 687–696.

39.

Al-Shahi Salman

Dennis

Sandercock

PAG

, et al. Effects of antiplatelet therapy after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (RESTART): a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 2019; 393: 2613–2623.

40.

Shoamanesh

Sharma

Dowlatshahi

, et al. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in intracerebral hemorrhage survivors with atrial fibrillation: primary results of the NASPAF-ICH randomized trial, Conference abstract, https://www.abstractsonline.com/pp8/#!/7927/presentation/5388 (2020, 07 May 2020).

41.

Akoudad

Portegies

Koudstaal

, et al. Cerebral microbleeds are associated with an increased risk of stroke: the Rotterdam study. Circulation 2015; 132: 509–516.

42.

Charidimou

Shakeshaft

Werring

DJ.

Cerebral microbleeds on magnetic resonance imaging and anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage risk. Front Neurol 2012; 3: 133.

43.

Greenberg

Eng

Ning

, et al. Hemorrhage burden predicts recurrent intracerebral hemorrhage after lobar hemorrhage. Stroke 2004; 35: 1415–1420.

44.

Wilson

Ambler

Lee

, et al. Cerebral microbleeds and stroke risk after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies. Lancet Neurol 2019; 18: 653–665.

45.

Charidimou

Imaizumi

Moulin

, et al. Brain hemorrhage recurrence, small vessel disease type, and cerebral microbleeds: a meta-analysis. Neurology 2017; 89: 820–829.

46.

Lip

Nieuwlaat

Pisters

, et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest 2010; 137: 263–272.

47.

Pisters

Lane

Nieuwlaat

, et al. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest 2010; 138: 1093–1100.

48.

Tveiten

Ljostad

Mygland

, et al. Functioning of long-term survivors of first-ever intracerebral hemorrhage. Acta Neurol Scand 2014; 129: 269–275.

49.

Al-Shahi Salman

Minks

Mitra

, et al. Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial. Lancet Neurol 2019; 18: 643–652.

50.

Schulman

Kearon

Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2005; 3: 692–694.

51.

Kaatz

Ahmad

Spyropoulos

, et al. Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost 2015; 13: 2119–2126.

STudy of Antithrombotic Treatment after IntraCerebral Haemorrhage: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Background and aims

Methods

Keywords

Background and aims

Methods

Trial design and overview

Patient population and consent

Imaging

Randomisation and intervention

Follow-up

Assessment of outcome events

Subgroup analyses

Statistical considerations

Safety

Data quality

Study organisation

Publication policy

Current trial status

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Ethical approval

Informed consent

Guarantor

Trial registration

Contributorship

Acknowledgements

ORCID iDs

References