Using protamine can significantly reduce the incidence of bleeding complications after carotid endarterectomy without increasing the risk of ischemic cerebral events

Temporal Trends and Contemporary Regional Variation in Management of Patients Undergoing Carotid Endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to investigate regional variation and temporal trends in seven quality metrics amongst CEA patients: discharge on antiplatelet after CEA; discharge on statin after CEA; protamine administration during CEA; patch placement at conventional CEA site; continued statin usage at the time of most recent follow-up; continued antiplatelet usage at the time of most recent follow-up; and smoking cessation at the time of long term follow up.

METHODS

There are 19 de-identified regions within the VQI database in the United States. Patients were placed into one of three temporal eras based on the time of their CEA: 2003-2008; 2009-2015; and 2016-2022. We first investigated temporal trends across the seven quality metrics for all regions combined on a national basis. The percentage of patients in each time era with the presence/absence of each metric was identified. Chi-squared testing was performed to confirm statistical significance of the differences across eras. Next, analysis was performed within each region and within each time metric. We separated out the 2016-2022 patients within each region to serve as the status of each metric application in the most modern era. We then compared the frequency of metric non-adherence in each region utilizing Chi-squared testing.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant improvement in achievement of all seven metrics between the initial 2003-2008 era and the modern 2016-2022 era. The most marked change in practice pattern was noted for lack of protamine usage at surgery (decreased from 48.7% to 25.9%), discharge home postoperatively without statin (decreased from 50.6% to 15.3%), and lack of statin usage confirmed at time of most recent long term follow up (decreased from 24% to 8.9%). Significant regional variation exists across all metrics (P < .01 for all). Lack of patch placement at the time of conventional endarterectomy ranges from 1.9% to 17.8% across regions in the modern era. Lack of protamine utilization ranges from 10.8% to 49.7%. Lack of antiplatelet and statin at the time of discharge varies from 5.5% to 8.2% and 4.8% to 14.4% respectively. Adherence to the various measures at the time of most recent follow up are more tightly aligned across regions with ranges of: 5.3% to 7.5% for lack of antiplatelet usage; 6.6% to 11.7% lack of statin utilization; and 13.3 to 15.4% for persistent smoking.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior studies and societal initiatives on CEA documenting the beneficial effects of patch angioplasty, protamine use at surgery, smoking cessation, antiplatelet utilization and statin compliance have positively impacted adherence to these measures over time. In the modern 2016-2022 era the widest regional variation is noted in patch placement, protamine utilization and discharge medications allowing individual geographic areas to identify areas for potential improvement via internal VQI administrative feedback.

A Meta-Analysis of Using Protamine for Reducing the Risk of Hemorrhage During Carotid Recanalization: Direct Comparisons of Post-operative Complications

Background: Protamine can decrease the risk of hemorrhage during carotid recanalization. However, it may cause severe side effects. There is no consensus on the safety and efficacy of protamine during surgery. Thus, we conduct a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to compare the differences between the protamine and the no-protamine group.

Method: We systematically obtained literature from Medline, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, and PubMed electronic databases. All four databases were scanned from 1937 when protamine was first adopted as a heparin antagonist until February 2021. The reference lists of identified studies were manually checked to determine other eligible studies that qualify. The articles were included in this meta-analysis as long as they met the criteria of PICOS; conference or commentary articles, letters, case report or series, and animal observation were excluded from this study. The Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and Cochrane Collaboration’s tool are used to assess the risk of bias of each included observational study and RCT, respectively. Stata version 12.0 statistical software (StataCorp LP, College Station, Texas) was adopted as statistical software. When I2 &lt; 50%, we consider that the data have no obvious heterogeneity, and we conduct a meta-analysis using the fixed-effect model. Otherwise, the random-effect model was performed.

Result: A total of 11 studies, consisting of 94,618 participants, are included in this study. Our analysis found that the rate of wound hematoma had a significant difference among protamine and no-protamine patients (OR = 0.268, 95% CI = 0.093 to 0.774, p = 0.015). Furthermore, the incidence of hematoma requiring re-operation (0.7%) was significantly lower than that of patients without protamine (1.8%). However, there was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke, wound hematoma with hypertension, transient ischemic attacks (TIA), myocardial infarction (MI), and death.

Conclusion: Among included participants undergoing recanalization, the use of protamine is effective in reducing hematoma without increasing the risk of having other complications. Besides, more evidence-based performance is needed to supplement this opinion due to inherent limitations.

ACTION-1: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on ACT-guided heparinization during open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Heparin is used worldwide for 70 years during all non-cardiac arterial procedures (NCAP) to reduce thrombo-embolic complications (TEC). But heparin also increases blood loss causing possible harm for the patient. Heparin has an unpredictable effect in the individual patient. The activated clotting time (ACT) can measure the effect of heparin. Currently, this ACT is not measured during NCAP as the standard of care, contrary to during cardiac interventions, open and endovascular. A RCT will evaluate if ACT-guided heparinization results in less TEC than the current standard: a single bolus of 5000 IU of heparin and no measurements at all. A goal ACT of 200-220 s should be reached during ACT-guided heparinization and this should decrease (mortality caused by) TEC, while not increasing major bleeding complications. This RCT will be executed during open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery, as this is a standardized procedure throughout Europe.

METHODS

Seven hundred fifty patients, who will undergo open AAA repair of an aneurysm originating below the superior mesenteric artery, will be randomised in 2 treatment arms: 5000 IU of heparin and no ACT measurements and no additional doses of heparin, or a protocol of 100 IU/kg bolus of heparin and ACT measurements after 5 min, and then every 30 min. The goal ACT is 200-220 s. If the ACT after 5 min is < 180 s, 60 IU/kg will be administered; if the ACT is between 180 and 200 s, 30 IU/kg. If the ACT is > 220 s, no extra heparin is given, and the ACT is measured after 30 min and then the same protocol is applied. The expected incidence for the combined endpoint of TEC and mortality is 19% for the 5000 IU group and 11% for the ACT-guided group.

DISCUSSION

The ACTION-1 trial is an international RCT during open AAA surgery, designed to show superiority of ACT-guided heparinization compared to the current standard of a single bolus of 5000 IU of heparin. A significant reduction in TEC and mortality, without more major bleeding complications, must be proven with a relevant economic benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION {2A}: NTR NL8421 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04061798 . Registered on 20 August 2019 EudraCT 2018-003393-27 TRIAL REGISTRATION: DATA SET {2B}: Data category Information Primary registry and trial identifying number ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04061798 Date of registration in primary registry 20-08-2019 Secondary identifying numbers NTR: NL8421 EudraCT: 2018-003393-27 Source(s) of monetary or material support ZonMw: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development Dijklander Ziekenhuis Amsterdam UMC Primary sponsor Dijklander Ziekenhuis Secondary sponsor(s) N/A Contact for public queries A.M. Wiersema, MD, PhD Arno@wiersema.nu 0031-229 208 206 Contact for scientific queries A.M. Wiersema, MD, PhD Arno@wiersema.nu 0031-229 208 206 Public title ACT Guided Heparinization During Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (ACTION-1) Scientific title ACTION-1: ACT Guided Heparinization During Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair, a Randomised Trial Countries of recruitment The Netherlands. Soon the recruitment will start in Germany Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied Abdominal aortic aneurysm, arterial disease, surgery Intervention(s) ACT-guided heparinization 5000 IU of heparin Key inclusion and exclusion criteria Ages eligible for the study: ≥18 years Sexes eligible for the study: both Accepts healthy volunteers: no Inclusion criteria: Study type Interventional Allocation: randomized Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: single blind (patient) Primary purpose: treatment Phase IV Date of first enrolment March 2020 Target sample size 750 Recruitment status Recruiting Primary outcome(s) The primary efficacy endpoint is 30-day mortality and in-hospital mortality during the same admission. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence of bleeding complications according to E-CABG classification, grade 1 and higher. Key secondary outcomes Serious complications as depicted in the Suggested Standards for Reports on Aneurysmal disease: all complications requiring re-operation, longer hospital stay, all complications.

Silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging after carotid revascularisation: A surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To investigate whether lesions on diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI+) after carotid artery stenting (CAS) or endarterectomy (CEA) might provide a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke.

Materials and Methods

Systematic MedLine® database search with selection of all studies published up to the end of 2016 in which DWI scans were obtained before and within seven days after CAS or CEA. The correlation between the underlying log odds of stroke and of DWI+ across all treatment groups (i.e. CAS or CEA groups) from included studies was estimated using a bivariate random effects logistic regression model. Relative risks of DWI+ and stroke in studies comparing CAS vs. CEA were estimated using fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel models.

Results

We included data of 4871 CAS and 2099 CEA procedures (85 studies). Across all treatment groups (CAS and CEA), the log odds for DWI+ was significantly associated with the log odds for clinically manifest stroke (correlation coefficient 0.61 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.87), p = 0.0012). Across all carotid artery stenting groups, the correlation coefficient was 0.19 (p = 0.074). There were too few CEA groups to reliably estimate a correlation coefficient in this subset alone. In 19 studies comparing CAS vs. CEA, the relative risks (95% confidence intervals) of DWI+ and stroke were 3.83 (3.17-4.63, p < 0.00001) and 2.38 (1.44-3.94, p = 0.0007), respectively.

Discussion

This systematic meta-analysis demonstrates a correlation between the occurrence of silent brain infarcts on diffusion-weighted imaging and the risk of clinically manifest stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures.

Conclusion

Our findings strengthen the evidence base for the use of DWI as a surrogate outcome measure for procedural stroke in carotid revascularisation procedures. Further randomised studies comparing treatment effects on DWI lesions and clinical stroke are needed to fully establish surrogacy.

American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: optimal management of anticoagulation therapy

BACKGROUND

Clinicians confront numerous practical issues in optimizing the use of anticoagulants to treat venous thromboembolism (VTE).

OBJECTIVE

These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians and other health care professionals in their decisions about the use of anticoagulants in the management of VTE. These guidelines assume the choice of anticoagulant has already been made.

METHODS

ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline development process, including updating or performing systematic evidence reviews. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 25 recommendations and 2 good practice statements to optimize management of patients receiving anticoagulants.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong recommendations included using patient self-management of international normalized ratio (INR) with home point-of-care INR monitoring for vitamin K antagonist therapy and against using periprocedural low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) bridging therapy. Conditional recommendations included basing treatment dosing of LMWH on actual body weight, not using anti-factor Xa monitoring to guide LMWH dosing, using specialized anticoagulation management services, and resuming anticoagulation after episodes of life-threatening bleeding.