부산대학교 도서관

Purpose: Traumatic brain injury is the main reason for the emergency department visit of up to 3% of the patients and a major worldwide cause for morbidity and mortality. Current emergency management guidelines recommend close attention to patients taking oral anticoagulation but not patients on antiplatelet therapy. Recent studies have begun to challenge this. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of antiplatelet therapy and oral anticoagulation on traumatic intracranial hemorrhage.Methods: Medical records of adult patients triaged with “head injury” as the main reason for emergency care were retrospectively reviewed from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017, and January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. Patients ≥ 18 years with head trauma were included. Odds ratio was calculated, and multiple logistic regression was performed.Results: A total of 4850 patients with a median age of 70 years were included. Traumatic intracranial hemorrhage was found in 6.2% of the patients. The risk ratio for traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in patients on antiplatelet therapy was 2.25 (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval 1.73–2.94) and 1.38 (p = 0.002, 95% confidence interval 1.05–1.84) in patients on oral anticoagulation compared to patients without mediations that affect coagulation. In binary multiple regression, antiplatelet therapy was associated with intracranial hemorrhage, but oral anticoagulation was not.Conclusion: This study shows that antiplatelet therapy is associated with a higher risk of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage compared to oral anticoagulation. Antiplatelet therapy should be given equal or greater consideration in the guidelines compared to anticoagulation therapy. Further studies on antiplatelet subtypes within the context of head trauma are recommended to improve the guidelines’ diagnostic accuracy.