Rabinstein, Alejandro A

ABSTRACT Introduction Patients often receive propofol for sedation and clevidipine for hypertension in the intensive care unit. Both agents are formulated as a lipid emulsion, which may increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with their coadministration. We aimed to determine the incidence of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis with concurrent administration of propofol and clevidipine and identify patient risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia. Methods This was a multicenter retrospective study of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions for ≥ 6 h. The primary outcome was the frequency of triglyceride levels greater than 400 mg/dL and acute pancreatitis. The secondary outcome was risk factors associated with hypertriglyceridemia during concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions until both infusions had been discontinued. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to assess risk factors of hypertriglyceridemia in patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine infusions. Results Across 1,226 patients, the median duration of infusion overlap was 12.4 [interquartile range (IQR) 8.3, 22.7] hours. The mean age of the cohort was 59.6 [standard deviation (SD) 14.9] years, and 59.4% were male. Assuming those without a triglyceride level drawn did not have hypertriglyceridemia, hypertriglyceridemia after initiation of propofol and clevidipine infusion was found in 7.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3% to 9.3%] of the entire cohort. Twenty‐six patients (2.1%) had a diagnosis of pancreatitis after initiation of lipid infusions, of which 12 cases were possibly infusion‐related, and one case was likely infusion‐related. After calculating the Naranjo Scale, all 13 cases of pancreatitis were possibly related to propofol or clevidipine infusions. Based on a multivariable logistic regression of those with a triglyceride level available, risk factors for hypertriglyceridemia included pancreatitis within the past 5 years [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.77, 95% CI, 1.23 to 6.23] and statin use (aOR 1.94, 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.34). Conclusions In our cohort of patients receiving concurrent propofol and clevidipine, the frequency of hypertriglyceridemia and acute pancreatitis was low. Further comparative studies are warranted to assess the risk of pancreatitis with the addition of clevidipine to propofol.

Background Resuming anticoagulation in patients with mechanical heart valves after intracranial hemorrhage presents a clinical dilemma. The optimal timing must balance the risk of thromboembolism against hemorrhagic expansion. Prior studies have addressed this issue, but most were limited by small sample sizes. This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to determine the optimal timing for anticoagulation resumption in this population. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus from database inception to August 23, 2024. The target population included adults with intracranial hemorrhage who required anticoagulation for mechanical heart valves. Results Thirteen studies involving 788 patients were included: 12 retrospective and 1 prospective observational study. While off anticoagulation, 32 patients developed ischemic stroke, with a pooled event rate of 5.23% (95% CI, 3.80–7.20%) and negligible heterogeneity ( I 2 = 0%). The pooled average time to stroke was 8.08 days (95% CI, 1.99–14.18). After anticoagulation resumption, 73 patients experienced hemorrhagic recurrence, corresponding to a pooled event rate of 10.95%, with nonsignificant heterogeneity ( I 2 = 40.4%). Conclusions Withholding anticoagulation for up to 7 days after intracranial hemorrhage in patients with mechanical heart valves appears relatively safe. Hemorrhagic recurrence after resumption was more common than ischemic stroke during interruption. However, the included studies were observational and carried serious or critical risk of bias. Prospective multicenter studies, and ideally randomized trials, are needed to provide more definitive evidence.

Antithrombotic therapy plays an important role in reducing stroke recurrence. For noncardioembolic stroke, multiple trials have demonstrated the efficacy of antiplatelet monotherapy for secondary stroke prevention. In select situations, such as short-term treatment in the acute period after a minor stroke or transient ischemic attack, dual-antiplatelet therapy has demonstrated superiority to monotherapy. Multiple trials have tested more aggressive strategies using long-term combination antiplatelet medications or full-dose anticoagulation with limited evidence of a reduction in ischemic events but a relatively consistent increased risk of bleeding. Emerging new agents targeting factor XI/XIa may uncouple necessary hemostasis from pathological thrombosis and offer promise for enhancing secondary prevention of stroke without increasing bleeding. The recently positive OCEANIC-STROKE trial (Oral Factor Eleven A Inhibitor Asundexian as Novel Antithrombotic) testing dual-pathway inhibition with the factor XIa inhibitor asundexian in combination with antiplatelet therapy represents a major advance in antithrombotic therapy for noncardioembolic stroke. This review summarizes the current state of the evidence for antithrombotic therapy in secondary stroke prevention after noncardioembolic stroke and discusses completed and ongoing trials of novel factor XI/XIa inhibitors for stroke prevention.