Contemplating medicine and the health care system
As most readers know, Ariel Sharon had two operations for intracerebral hemorrhage last night – Sharon still in very serious condition, vital signs stable
Sharon suffered a massive brain hemorrhage late Wednesday, which caused extensive cerebral bleeding.
Some doctors proffered an opinion that the process of stopping Sharon’s brain hemorrhage was complicated by the blood thinners that the prime minister has been receiving twice daily since his first, minor, stroke some two weeks ago. Hadassah doctors neither confirmed nor denied this theory.
My interpretation of the events follows. I have no data other than the newspaper accounts on which to base my opinions.
Two weeks ago, Sharon had a thrombotic stroke. Current practice recommendations suggest anticoagulation for patients having thrombotic strokes – to decrease the risk of recurrence.
Unfortunately, anticoagulation increases the risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Thus, I believe that Sharon’s bleed was exacerbated (if not also caused) by his anticoagulation. This is a known risk of anticoagulation.
What should we learn? We must always remember that our treatments have both risks and benefits. Sharon’s physicians gave the right treatment – but sometimes the risks become complications. Unfortunately, Sharon has had a major unfortunate complication of a correct medication.
Related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
9 Responses to On Sharon’s cerebral hemorrhage
David Toub, MD, MBA
January 5th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
I’ve also given it a bit of thought. Certainly a hemorrhagic CVA is always a potential complication of anticoagulation. But I assume Sharon’s PT, INR, etc were also being monitored per protocol. One of the most common reasons for a hemorrhagic CVA is hypertension, and I haven’t seen anything yet written as to what his BP status was. If the inciting event was a hypertensive CVA, of course any degree of anticoagulation would make it worse. But I’m not sure that therapeutic anticoagulation, without dangerously high PT or INR values, would incite a “massive stroke” in and of itself. But I’m a gynecologist and would certainly defer to colleagues with a different perspective.
Ehud
January 6th, 2006 at 6:01 am
According to the papers in Israel, Sharon’s BP was normal, but he was quite stressed becaused of his upcoming heart procedure and ecause of news regarding the police investigation concerning himself and his sons.
Steve
January 7th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Sharon was being anticoagulated because of a suspected paradoxical embolus through a patent foramen ovale. That was thought to be the cause of his TIA, and the procedure planned was presumably a percutaneous PFO closure.
The management of cryptogenic stroke and PFO remains quite unsettled. A good review appeared in the NEJM recently.
The likelihood of this diagnosis in a 77yo male is debatable, though of course I don’t have all (or any) of the facts.
I disagree with db: anticoagulants are not the standard of care for thrombotic strokes, only thromboembolic ones.
David Toub
January 7th, 2006 at 7:19 am
Yes, but according to Sharon’s cardiac imaging, there is a 2 mm communication that in theory could be sufficient for a paradoxical embolus. If that was indeed the etiology of his previous CVA, then anticoagulation would be appropriate as this would have been a thromboembolic event, not a purely thrombotic one.
Bob Snodgrass
January 7th, 2006 at 11:26 am
You are talking 1975 when you speak of Coumadin anticoagulation for patients after ischemic stroke. Only for cardioembolic strokes or in patients with established atrial fibrillation would Coumadin anticoagulation make sense today. You may review the Cochrane report from 2001 (there is no new data to change their conclusion that aspirin reduces the risk of recurrent stroke by 15-20% and that there is no current evidence that Coumadin at any dose gives better results). The International ESPRIT study is still ongoing and may provide better insight into this situation.
I am a neurologist who sees only patients under 25 years old. My stroke colleagues say a. Many people have patent foramen ovale- perhaps 20%. They would be very dubious that a PFO explained a stroke in a 77 yo man who is 100 pounds overweight. They would treat such a person with aspirin and weight reduction.
b. The fact that the patient was still bleeding after the first craniotomy and required immediate reoperation strongly argues for excessive anticoagulation.
c. They would not permit a third operation on a relative in Sharon’s situation – it’s futile
Israeli neurologists are good. The problem is that political big shots are overtreated, not just in Israel. We should always be asked, is this what you would want for yourself, your parent or your child?
Cochrane reference:
Agra, A, et al. Oral anticoagulants versus antiplatelet therapy for preventing further vascular events after transient ischaemic attack or minor stroke of presumed arterial origin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD001342.
Bob Snodgrass
Katherine
January 10th, 2006 at 7:46 am
It’s my understanding that the anticoagulant used on Sharon was Clexane (better known as Lovenox in the US). What dosage would you presume he received?
pmo
January 14th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
clexane= enoxaparin[low molecular weight heparin], according to medic,co.il : prophylactic in moderate risk[gen.surg]20 mg. x 1/d for 7-10 d. or until ambulatory. Prophy. in high risk [orth.surg]40 mg. x 1/d. for three weeks. Deep vein thromb./unstable angina/non Q Wave MI: 1 mg/kg. body weight every 12 hours[ very high dosages in my humble opinion].
John
February 4th, 2006 at 7:25 pm
My father suffered a cerebral hemmorhage this week that his doctor likened to the type and serverity of Sharon’s. Can someone KNOWLEDGABLE (not opinionated) tell me what the treatment is and the prognosis. At this time he is unresponsive, paralyzed on the r. side w/ limited use of left side. It seems as if there is nothing being done except IV antihypertensive, vancomycin for his every increasing chest congestion and neuro checks. Is there anything else that I can expect to be done? His MD said surgery is an option at some point but usually more damage is done in surgery than before.
candice panter
March 28th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
my dad suffered from the same thing march 6th he was paralyzed onthe left side the drs did nothing except blood pressure meds but we had to turn off the machines 6 days later and he passed