Abstract Background: Use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC) is increasingly common among patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease. Differences in the mechanisms of action as compared to warfarin could impact transfusion patterns and clinical outcomes in patients, especially for those presenting with major hemorrhage. The management of patients taking these newer medications and corresponding outcomes are relevant to optimizing clinical decision making in situations of major hemorrhage. Methods: We tested the hypothesis that inpatient all-cause mortality among patients presenting with major hemorrhage differs based on the home-administered anticoagulant medication class (DOAC versus warfarin). A cohort of patients presenting to twelve US hospitals from 2013 to 2016 was identified using the Recipient Epidemiology and Donor Evaluation Study (REDS)-III Recipient Database. Primary ICD diagnosis codes, issued blood products, laboratory data, and early mortality events were used in the application of the International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis definition of major hemorrhage. Exposure status was defined as a record of home-administered DOAC (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban; exposed) or warfarin (non-exposed). Patients with multiple encounters and those transferred into or out of network were excluded from the analysis. Proportional hazards regression was used to compare all-cause mortality and hospital length of stay. We then repeated the analysis using a cohort matched on propensity scores to account for confounding by age, gender, concurrent aspirin and anti-platelet use, liver and renal dysfunction, cancer, CHA2DS2-VASc score, traumatic injury, and hospital. We then repeated the propensity score matched analysis stratified by anatomic location of bleed and traumatic injury. Results: More than 1.5 million hospitalizations were screened for eligibility. Exclusion of minors, outpatients, hospitalizations without a medication of interest, absence of major hemorrhage, multiple hospitalizations, and hospital transfers resulted in 3,731 patients available for the unadjusted analysis. Inpatient all-cause mortality was lower among DOAC users when the entire cohort was considered (HR = 0.60, 95%CI 0.45 - 0.80, p=0.0005). Implementation of propensity score matching to account for confounding abrogated this difference (HR=0.84, 95%CI 0.58 - 1.22, p=0.36). Time to hospital discharge was shorter for DOAC users (HR = 1.17, 95%CI 1.05 - 1.30, p=0.0034). Transfusion patterns were similar by medication, except for plasma transfusion occurring in 42% of warfarin encounters and 11% of DOAC encounters. Vitamin K was administered in 63% of warfarin encounters, whereas specific DOAC reversal agents were largely unavailable during the analysis period [used in 5 (1%) DOAC encounters]. There were no statistically significant differences in inpatient all-cause mortality in the stratified analysis (warfarin as reference): HR = 0.69 (95%CI 0.31 - 1.55) for traumatic head injuries; HR = 1.10 (95%CI 0.62 - 1.95) for non-traumatic head injuries; HR = 0.62 (95%CI 0.20 - 1.94) for traumatic, non-head injuries; and HR = 0.69 (95%CI 0.29 - 1.63) for non-traumatic, non-head injuries. Conclusions: Analysis of a population taking oral anticoagulation and presenting with major hemorrhage showed that transfusion of plasma was more commonly employed to treat major hemorrhage among warfarin users than DOAC users. Inpatient all-cause mortality was lower among DOAC users in the overall cohort; however, accounting for potential confounding factors using propensity score matching abrogated this difference. Hospital length of stay was shorter for DOAC users compared to warfarin users. Stratification by location of bleed and traumatic injury did not alter these findings. Less plasma use and a shorter length of hospitalization in this study, combined with no observable difference in inpatient all-cause mortality, suggests that outcomes following major hemorrhage are at least no different for DOAC users as compared to warfarin users. Disclosures Mast: Novo Nordisk: Research Funding. Kor:NIH: Consultancy; NIH: Research Funding; UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; CSL Behring: Honoraria.
Use of hydroxyethyl starch in leukocytapheresis procedures does not increase renal toxicity
BACKGROUNDHydroxyethyl starch (HES) is reportedly associated with an increased risk of renal failure and death when used for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. HES can be used during therapeutic leukocytapheresis (TL) procedures to enhance cell separation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of adverse events associated with HES during TL procedures.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSWe performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent TL with and without HES in the period 2009 to 2013 at six academic medical institutions.RESULTSA difference‐in‐difference regression analysis was used to estimate the mean change before and after TL in selected outcomes in the HES group relative to the average change in the non‐HES group. Selected outcomes included serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and white blood cell (WBC) count. A total of 195 patients who underwent 278 TL procedures were studied. We found no significant differences in serum creatinine levels and eGFR on Days 1 and 7 after TL procedure between patients who received and those who did not receive HES. The rate of adverse events and overall and early mortality were similar in both groups. Patients with acute myeloid leukemia who received HES had greater WBC reduction when HES was used. Additionally, patients who received HES had improvement in pulmonary leukostasis symptoms.CONCLUSIONHES, used at low doses during TL procedures, was not associated with adverse events previously ascribed to its use as a volume expander.
Report of the ASFA apheresis registry on muscle specific kinase antibody positive myasthenia gravis
BackgroundDetailed information regarding plasma use in the United States is needed to identify opportunities for practice improvement and design of clinical trials of plasma therapy.Study Design and MethodsTen US hospitals collected detailed medical information from the electronic health records for 1 year (2010‐2011) for all adult patients transfused with plasma.ResultsA total of 72,167 units of plasma were transfused in 19,596 doses to 9269 patients. The median dose of plasma was 2 units (interquartile range, 2‐4; range 1‐72); 15% of doses were 1 unit, and 45% were 2 units. When adjusted by patient body weight (kg), the median dose was 7.3 mL/kg (interquartile range, 5.5‐12.0). The median pretransfusion international normalized ratio (INR) was 1.9 (25%‐75% interquartile range, 1.6‐2.6). A total of 22.5% of plasma transfusions were given to patients with an INR of less than 1.6 and 48.5% for an INR of 2.0 or more. The median posttransfusion INR was 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.4‐2.0). Only 42% of plasma transfusions resulted in a posttransfusion INR of less than 1.6. Correction of INR increased as the plasma dose increased from 1 to 4 units (p < 0.001). There was no difference in the INR response to different types of plasma. The most common issue locations were general ward (38%) and intensive care unit (ICU; 42%).ConclusionThis large database describing plasma utilization in the United States provides evidence for both inadequate dosing and unnecessary transfusion. Measures to improve plasma transfusion practice and clinical trials should be directed at patients on medical and surgical wards and in the ICU where plasma is most commonly used.
National heart, lung, and blood institute state of the science symposium in therapeutic apheresis—Therapeutic apheresis in cardiovascular disease
Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice—Evidence‐Based Approach from the Writing Committee of the American Society for Apheresis: The Sixth Special Issue