Outcome of intracranial bleeding managed with prothrombin complex concentrate in patients on direct factor Xa inhibitors or vitamin K antagonists

Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is the most feared complication of anticoagulation with a high mortality and morbidity. Before registration of a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors (FXa-I), international guidelines recommended prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC), which also is the specific reversal agent for vitamin K antagonists (VKA). In two contemporary cohorts, we compared clinical outcomes between patients with FXa-I and VKA related ICH treated with PCC between 2014 and 2018. Primary outcome was effective hemostasis after 24 h, according to the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis definition. Safety outcomes were defined as venous and arterial thromboembolic complications and death within 30 days. Thirty-six patients with FXa-I-ICH and 39 patients with VKA-ICH were available for analysis. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both groups, except for time from start of symptoms to presentation at the hospital. In the FXa-I-ICH cohort, 24 (73%) patients achieved effective hemostasis compared to 23 (62%) patients in the VKA-ICH cohort (crude odds ratio [OR] 1.62 [95%CI 0.59–4.48], adjusted OR 1.45 [95%CI 0.44–4.83]). Eight (24%) patients with FXa-I-ICH deceased compared to 17 (45%) patients with VKA-ICH (crude OR 0.38 [95%CI 0.14–1.24], adjusted OR 0.41 [95%CI 0.12–1.24]). In this observational cohort study, the outcome of ICH managed with PCC was similar in patients with FXa-I-ICH and in patients with VKA-ICH

Prescribing Errors With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Bleeding is the primary major complication of LMWH therapy, which is associated with dose. The administration of appropriate dosages of LMWHs depends on the patient's risk of VTE, risk of bleeding, bodyweight, and renal function. Therefore, LMWH prescribing is prone to errors. However, no earlier study has explored the frequency of prescribing errors with LMWH. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and determinants of in-hospital LMWH-prescribing errors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the frequency and determinants of LMWH prescribing errors between April and August 2014. We randomly selected 500 patients 18 years and older with at least one LMWH prescription during inpatient hospitalization. A prescribing error was a deviation from the internal hospital guidelines. Logistic regression estimated determinants of prescribing error. RESULTS: A prescribing error was present with 34% of all LMWH users. The most frequently recorded error was a dose that was not adjusted to body weight and/or renal function (85%). Prophylactic LMWH prescribing in medical wards was associated with a higher risk of prescribing error as compared with surgical wards. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of prescribing errors was 34% in a tertiary care hospital. Being a patient with prophylactic LMWH use on a medical ward is a determinant for LMWH prescribing error. Interventions that will lead to better electronic recording of body weight and more awareness among medical doctors may reduce the total number of prescribing errors

Oral Anticoagulants Beyond Warfarin

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have largely replaced vitamin K antagonists, mostly warfarin, for the main indications for oral anticoagulation, prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism, and prevention of embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation. While DOACs offer practical, fixed-dose anticoagulation in many patients, specific restrictions or contraindications may apply. DOACs are not sufficiently effective in high-thrombotic risk conditions such as antiphospholipid syndrome and mechanical heart valves. Patients with cancer-associated thrombosis may benefit from DOACs, but the bleeding risk, particularly in those with gastrointestinal or urogenital tumors, must be carefully weighed. In patients with frailty, excess body weight, and/or moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease, DOACs must be cautiously administered and may require laboratory monitoring. Reversal agents have been developed and approved for life-threatening bleeding. In addition, the clinical testing of potentially safer anticoagulants such as factor XI(a) inhibitors is important to further optimize anticoagulant therapy in an increasingly elderly and frail population worldwide. Expected final online publication date for the , Volume 64 is January 2024. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates

Empirically Reduced Dosages of Tinzaparin in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Renal Insufficiency Lead to Inadequate Anti-Xa Levels

Background: Due to the higher molecular weight of tinzaparin, the low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is less dependent on renal excretion than other LMWH preparations. However, several international guidelines recommend the same preemptive dosage reduction for all therapeutic dose LMWHs prescribed in renal insufficient patients, to ensure that there is no accumulation of anticoagulant activity and increased risk of bleeding. This study is aimed at assessing whether a preemptive dosage reduction of tinzaparin in all renal insufficient patients (comprising 25% reduction in patients with Modification of Diet in Renal Disease - estimated glomerular filtration rate (MDRD-eGFR) 30-60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 50% reduction in patients with MDRD-eGFR = 18 years) with moderate-to-severe renal insufficiency (MDRD-eGFR 0.85 IU/mL for therapeutic indications. Unadjusted dosages led to a median anti-Xa activity of 0.74 IU/mL (IQR 0.56-0.92). The preemptive dosage reduction was significantly associated with anti-Xa activity below therapeutic range (p = 0.007). No difference in anti-Xa activity was observed between patients with moderate (0.71 IU/mL, IQR 0.61-0.95) versus severe (0.65 IU/mL, IQR 0.41-1.06) renal insufficiency in whom an unadjusted dose had been administered (p = 0.77). None of the anti-Xa levels were above the upper margin of the presumed therapeutic range of 2.0 IU/mL. Conclusion: In renal insufficient patients, the preemptive dosage reduction of tinzaparin leads to inadequate anti-Xa levels. (C) 2017 S. Karger AG, Base

Prescribing Errors With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Bleeding is the primary major complication of LMWH therapy, which is associated with dose. The administration of appropriate dosages of LMWHs depends on the patient's risk of VTE, risk of bleeding, bodyweight, and renal function. Therefore, LMWH prescribing is prone to errors. However, no earlier study has explored the frequency of prescribing errors with LMWH. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and determinants of in-hospital LMWH-prescribing errors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the frequency and determinants of LMWH prescribing errors between April and August 2014. We randomly selected 500 patients 18 years and older with at least one LMWH prescription during inpatient hospitalization. A prescribing error was a deviation from the internal hospital guidelines. Logistic regression estimated determinants of prescribing error. RESULTS: A prescribing error was present with 34% of all LMWH users. The most frequently recorded error was a dose that was not adjusted to body weight and/or renal function (85%). Prophylactic LMWH prescribing in medical wards was associated with a higher risk of prescribing error as compared with surgical wards. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of prescribing errors was 34% in a tertiary care hospital. Being a patient with prophylactic LMWH use on a medical ward is a determinant for LMWH prescribing error. Interventions that will lead to better electronic recording of body weight and more awareness among medical doctors may reduce the total number of prescribing errors

Comparison of three generic quality-of-life metrics in peripheral arterial disease patients undergoing conservative and invasive treatments

Purpose To determine the effect of revascularisation for peripheral arterial disease (PAD) on QoL in the first and second year following diagnosis, to compare the effect depicted by Short Form Six Dimensions (SF-6D) and EuroQoL five Dimensions (EQ-5D) utilities, and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and to analyse heterogeneity in treatment response. Methods Longitudinal data from 229 PAD patients were obtained in an observational study in southern Netherlands. Utility scores were calculated with the international (SF-6D) and Dutch (EQ-5D) tariffs. We analysed treatment effect at years 1 and 2 through propensity score-matched ANCOVAs. Thereby, we estimated the marginal means (EMMs) of revascularisation and conservative treatment, and identified covariates of revascularisation effect. Results A year after diagnosis, 70 patients had been revascularised; the EMMs of revascularisation were 0.038, 0.077 and 0.019 for SF-6D, EQ-5D and VAS, respectively (always in this order). For conservative treatment these were -0.017, 0.038 and 0.021. At 2-year follow-up, the EMMs of revascularisation were 0.015, 0.077 and 0.027, for conservative treatment these were -0.020, 0.013 and -0.004. Baseline QoL (and rest pain in year 2) were covariates of treatment effect. Conclusions We measured positive effects of revascularisation and conservative treatment on QoL a year after diagnosis, the effect of revascularisation was sustained over 2 years. The magnitude of effect varied between the metrics and was largest for the EQ-5D, which may be most suitable for QoL measurement in PAD patients. Baseline QoL influenced revascularisation effect, in clinical practice this may inform expected QoL gain in individual patients

Prescribing Errors With Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins

BACKGROUND: Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) are used in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Bleeding is the primary major complication of LMWH therapy, which is associated with dose. The administration of appropriate dosages of LMWHs depends on the patient's risk of VTE, risk of bleeding, bodyweight, and renal function. Therefore, LMWH prescribing is prone to errors. However, no earlier study has explored the frequency of prescribing errors with LMWH. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine the frequency and determinants of in-hospital LMWH-prescribing errors. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the frequency and determinants of LMWH prescribing errors between April and August 2014. We randomly selected 500 patients 18 years and older with at least one LMWH prescription during inpatient hospitalization. A prescribing error was a deviation from the internal hospital guidelines. Logistic regression estimated determinants of prescribing error. RESULTS: A prescribing error was present with 34% of all LMWH users. The most frequently recorded error was a dose that was not adjusted to body weight and/or renal function (85%). Prophylactic LMWH prescribing in medical wards was associated with a higher risk of prescribing error as compared with surgical wards. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of prescribing errors was 34% in a tertiary care hospital. Being a patient with prophylactic LMWH use on a medical ward is a determinant for LMWH prescribing error. Interventions that will lead to better electronic recording of body weight and more awareness among medical doctors may reduce the total number of prescribing errors