Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2003;34:837-839
Published online before print March 27, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000061517.79104.0E
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/4/837-a    most recent
01.STR.0000061517.79104.0Ev1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Grips, E.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, H. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Grips, E.
Right arrow Articles by Adams, H. P., Jr

(Stroke. 2003;34:837-a.)
© 2003 American Heart Association, Inc.


Letters to the Editor

Banning Anticoagulation in Stroke or Consequence of Poor Study Design

E. Grips, MD; M. Daffertshofer, MD M. Hennerici, MD

Klinikum Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany


An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.
 

To the Editor:

We read with great interest the review from H.P. Adams1 who critically re-evaluates individual aspects of well-known and often-discussed studies on anticoagulation in acute stroke. These studies do not exhibit a net benefit of anticoagulant use with regard to the criteria safety, mortality, morbidity, prevention of stroke recurrence and late outcome. The author emphasized the differences among the individual studies with regard to sample sizes, time-to-start of therapy (extending up to 48 hours after stroke onset), protocols for dosages and controls of anticoagulants used and the route of administration leading to a distinct criticism of major meta-analysis published. In addition, prominent shortcomings such as the missing baseline brain imaging studies in the dominating IST and CAST trials and the lack of any efforts to differentiate among stroke subtypes with gross under representation of embolic mechanisms are mentioned. However, despite these shortcomings, H.P. Adams concludes that he sees no indication for anticoagulation in acute stroke and suggests the future role of anticoagulants will be very limited.

In our view this conclusion is premature and not accepted by many "stroke experts" in institutions where advanced diagnostic techniques and neuro-monitoring are available. So far the albeit limited data available from these trials reveals statistically significant advantages of anticoagulation in the prevention of deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, as well as of early recurrent stroke. It is likely that a supposed increase in risk of bleeding complications is biased by restrictions of IST and CAST which do not reflect standards of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Harold P. Adams, Jr, MD

Department of Neurology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa