well I tried to address this in my earlier post, so let me have another go.
There is the risk of injury and then the risk of harm. The risk of harm is amplified by inadequate and proper treatment soon. Soon is seldom measured in seconds (unless its an aortic dissection) and the brain can survive relatively unharmed even an IC Bleed with prompt attention to treatment.
This was addressed earlier when you mentioned the proximity of hospitals and cleared up that you were in Sweden (not, say, Botswana or Belarus).
You should start looking into the successes and gold standards in the treatment of strokes, as that's where you will get your "oblique" but related important data. These include (in no particular order):
- rapid relieve from pressure caused by a bleed (in extreme cases)
- raid reversal of a bleed (by IV administration of Vitamin K)
- use of tPA to bust any clots that form
- identification of an IC bleed by symptom observation in the first instance (Eg how long it takes to come around from a concussion. These are published) and confirmation by scan if suspected.
As I said from the start, Warfarin does not cause bleeds, it simply exacerbates them. The risk of a bleed from a (say) header injury is the same as the age related risk of that. If the INR is below 2.5 then really the risk of a bleed going on is not that different to the age related group and to be frank all the
scar stuff is based on a time when we just didn't know what a patients INR was. They'll determine that within seconds of admission to any hospital in Sweden.