His institutions have received an educational grant from Pfizer, compensation from Stago for educational efforts and research support from Daiichi-Sankyo, the Science Funds [Wissenschaftsfonds] of the University Hospital Basel, the University Basel, the Freiwillige Akademische Gesellschaft Basel, the Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Swiss National Science Foundation. 2 studies reported data on 4943 patients with NOAC-ICH. Patients with VKA-ICH were significantly older than patients with non-OAC ICH (mean age difference: 5.55?years, 95%CI 4.03C7.07, apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban aAge: if median and IQR were provided, we estimated mean and SD using a previously published formula(19). VKA: Warfarin (except Horstmann et al. [9]: phenprocoumon; Neau et al. [4] and Dequatre-Ponchell et al. [11]: Fluindione, acnocoumarol and Warfarin) Table 2 Risk of bias assessment according to the Cochrane Tool to Assess Risk of Bias in Cohort Studies
Radberg et al. [5]?+??+??+??+?–?+??+??+??+???+??+?Neau et al. [4]?+??+??+??+????+??+??+??+?Rosand et al. [8]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Flibotte et al. [7]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Flaherty et al. [6]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Flaherty et al. [12]?+??+??+??+???+??+???+?Cucchiara et al. [29]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+???+?Horstmann et al. [9]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Ma et al. [21]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?–?+?Dequatre-Ponchelle et al. [11]?+??+??+??+??+??+?C?+??+??+?–?+?Curtze et al. [20]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Von der Brelie et al. [10]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Inohara et al. [25]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Romem [27]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Roquer [23]?+??+?CC?+??+??+?C?+?Toyoda [28]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Fric-Shamji [22]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?Foerch [26]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+??+?–?+?Yamashita et al. [24]?+??+??+??+??+??+??+?C?+??+??+? Open in a separate window 1. Was selection of exposed and non-exposed cohorts drawn from the same population? 2. Can we be confident in the assessment of exposure? 3. Can we be confident that the outcome of interest was not present at start of study? 4. Did the study match exposed and unexposed for all variables that are associated with the outcome of interest or did the PHA690509 statistical analysis adjust for these prognostic variables? 5. Can we be confident in the assessment of the presence or absence of prognostic factors? 6. Can we be confident in the assessment of outcome? 7. Was the follow-up of cohorts adequate? 8. Were co-interventions similar between groups? Ratings:?+??+?, definitely yes (Low risk of bias);?+?, probably yes; C, probably no; –, definitely no (high risk of bias) VKA-ICH vs. non-OAC ICH Overview All 19 studies reported data of 16,546 patients with VKA-ICH. The number of patients with VKA-ICH ranged between 21 and 208 patients in single- and multi-centre studies, with the GWTG registry reporting data of 15,036 patients with VKA-ICH. Fourteen of 19 studies PHA690509 recruited less than 100 patients with VKA-ICH. Patients with VKA-ICH were significantly older than patients with non-OAC ICH (mean age difference: 5.55?years, 95%CI 4.03C7.07, p?I2?=?92%, p?p?I2?=?42%, p?=?0.05; Fig.?1). Open in a separate window Fig. 1 Mean difference of ICH volume in PHA690509 VKA-ICH compared to non-OAC ICH Haematoma expansion Eight studies [7, 9, 10, 20, 22, 24, 28, 29] reported data on HE of 302 patients with VKA-ICH compared to 1944 patients with non-OAC ICH. Overall, VKA-ICH was associated with a significantly increased risk of HE (OR 2.96, 95%CI 1.74C4.97, p?I2?=?65%, p?=?0.005, Fig.?2) with a pooled rate of 35.8% compared to 18.9% in patients with non-OAC ICH. Open in a separate window SIRT3 Fig. 2 Rate of haematoma expansion PHA690509 (HE) in PHA690509 VKA-ICH compared to non-OAC ICH Mortality Fifteen studies reported mortality: eight studies [4, 6, 21C23, 25, 26, 28] reported.