Evidence Hub

Black Hole Sign under Anticoagulant Therapy: A Retrospective Comparison of Warfarin and Direct Oral Anticoagulants

Sato H, Kinoshita M, Takano T, Sanada T, Fujikawa S, Toda M, Choji K, Kimura T

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2025

111 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Graphical Abstract BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) have rapidly replaced warfarin. Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is known to be one of the most severe side effects of anticoagulant drugs. The black hole (BH) sign is reportedly a valid radiologic sign for predicting hematoma expansion in acute ICH. Here, we hypothesized that the frequency of BH signs might differ between warfarin and DOAC treatment. We critically evaluated the clinical value of the BH sign in acute ICH under warfarin versus DOAC therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with acute ICH under anticoagulant therapy were enrolled. Hematoma volumes were measured by ABC/2. Radiologists blinded to the clinical information determined the presence or absence of the BH sign on CT images. This study defined a more than 12.5 mL increase in hematoma volume as cases with “expanded hematoma.” RESULTS: We analyzed 111 patients with acute ICH under anticoagulant therapy. Among them, 21 patients were treated with antagonists in this cohort. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of ventricular perforation (P = .02; adjusted OR: 3.51; 95% CI: 1.32–10.2) and the BH sign (P < .01; adjusted OR: 4.86; 95% CI: 1.73–14.3) were significantly different between expanded and nonexpanded hematoma cases. Comparison of hematoma volume and the presence of the BH sign between warfarin and DOAC cases indicated significant differences in maximum hematoma volume (P = .03) and presence of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 111 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free