What's happening in Neurology® Clinical Practice
Citation Manager Formats
Make Comment
See Comments

Traumatic and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage in atrial fibrillation patients on warfarin
Background
Intracranial hemorrhage is the most devastating complication in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving oral anticoagulation (OAC). It can be either spontaneous or caused by head trauma. We sought to address the prevalence, clinical characteristics, and prognosis of traumatic and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages in AF patients on OAC.
Methods
Multicenter FibStroke registry of 5,629 patients identified 592 intracranial hemorrhages during warfarin treatment between 2003 and 2012.
Results
A large proportion (40%) of intracranial hemorrhages were traumatic. Of these, 64% were subdural hemorrhages (SDHs) and 20% intracerebral hemorrhages (ICHs). With respect to the spontaneous hemorrhages, 25% were SDHs and 67% ICHs. Patients with traumatic hemorrhage were older (81 vs 78 years, p = 0.01) and more often had congestive heart failure (30% vs 16%, p < 0.01) and anemia (7% vs 3%, p = 0.03) compared to patients with spontaneous hemorrhage. Admission international normalized ratio (INR) values (2.7 vs 2.7, p = 0.79), as well as CHA2DS2-VASc (median 4 vs 4, p = 0.08) and HAS-BLED (median 2 vs 2, p = 0.05) scores, were similar between the groups. The 30-day mortality after traumatic hemorrhage was significantly lower than after spontaneous hemorrhage (25% vs 36%, p < 0.01).
Conclusions
A significant proportion of intracranial hemorrhages in anticoagulated AF patients were traumatic. Traumatic hemorrhages were predominantly SDHs and less often fatal when compared to spontaneous hemorrhages, which were mainly ICHs. Admission INR values as well as CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores were similar in patients with spontaneous and traumatic intracranial hemorrhage.
Diagnoses and other predictors of patient absenteeism in an outpatient neurology clinic
Background
We sought to determine the neurologic diagnosis or diagnostic categories that are associated with a higher probability of honoring a scheduled follow-up visit in the outpatient clinic.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients evaluated over a 3-year period (July 2014–June 2017) at a single neurology clinic in an urban location. Adult patients who honored an initial scheduled outpatient appointment were included. Only diagnoses with a ≥0.5% prevalence at our center were analyzed. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to determine association of independent variables and honored follow-up visits.
Results
Of 61,232 scheduled outpatient subsequent encounters for 20,729 unique patients, the overall absenteeism rate was 12.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.2%–12.8%). Independent risk factors associated with absenteeism included younger age, black or Latino race/ethnicity, Medicaid/Medicare payor status, and longer delay from appointment scheduling to appointment date. In mixed-effects logistic regression, diagnoses associated with the lowest odds of showing were medication overuse headache (show rate 79.2%, odds ratio [OR] for honoring appointment 0.67, 95% CI 0.48–0.93) and depression (rate 85.9%, OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.97), whereas the diagnoses associated with the greatest odds of showing included Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (rate 96.3%, OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.44–4.49) and aphasia (rate 95.9%, OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.28–4.30).
Conclusions
Certain chronic neurologic diseases, such as medication overuse headache and depression, were associated with a significantly lower odds of honoring scheduled follow-up conditions. As these conditions influence quality of life and productivity, patients with these illnesses may benefit from selective targeting to encourage adherence with scheduled follow-up appointments.
Practice Current
We invited neurologists, resident and fellow trainees, and advanced practice providers to respond to our survey on the topic “How do you manage patients with a ‘hot carotid’?” and received over 750 responses from over 80 countries! Explore this topic and others on our redesigned website: compare your practice with peers and see survey results displayed on an interactive world map.
- Received January 11, 2019.
- Accepted in final form January 11, 2019.
- © 2019 American Academy of Neurology
Disputes & Debates: Rapid online correspondence
NOTE: All authors' disclosures must be entered and current in our database before comments can be posted. Enter and update disclosures at http://submit.neurology.org. Exception: replies to comments concerning an article you originally authored do not require updated disclosures.
- Stay timely. Submit only on articles published within the last 8 weeks.
- Do not be redundant. Read any comments already posted on the article prior to submission.
- 200 words maximum.
- 5 references maximum. Reference 1 must be the article on which you are commenting.
- 5 authors maximum. Exception: replies can include all original authors of the article.
- Submitted comments are subject to editing and editor review prior to posting.
You May Also be Interested in
Related Articles
- No related articles found.