Management of surgery, menorrhagia and child-birth for patients with unclassified bleeding disorders: a systematic review of cohort studies

Standardization of definition and management for bleeding disorder of unknown cause: communication from the SSC of the ISTH

In many patients referred with significant bleeding phenotype, laboratory testing fails to define any hemostatic abnormalities. Clinical practice with respect to diagnosis and management of this patient cohort poses significant clinical challenges. We recommend that bleeding history in these patients should be objectively assessed using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) bleeding assessment tool. Patients with increased bleeding assessment tool scores should progress to hemostasis laboratory testing. To diagnose bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), normal complete blood count, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, von Willebrand factor antigen, von Willebrand factor function, coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, and platelet light transmission aggregometry should be the minimum laboratory assessment. In some laboratories, additional specialized hemostasis testing may be performed to identify other rare causes of bleeding. We recommend that patients with a significant bleeding phenotype but normal laboratory investigations should be registered with a diagnosis of BDUC in preference to other terminology. Global hemostatic tests and markers of fibrinolysis demonstrate variable abnormalities, and their clinical significance remains uncertain. Targeted genomic sequencing examining candidate hemostatic genes has a low diagnostic yield. Underlying BDUC should be considered in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding since delays in diagnosis often extend to many years and negatively impact quality of life. Treatment options for BDUC patients include tranexamic acid, desmopressin, and platelet transfusions.

Risk factors for future bleeding in patients with mild bleeding disorders: longitudinal data from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank

BACKGROUND

The future bleeding risk, especially after hemostatic challenges, and thus the requirement for hemostatic treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders (MBDs) is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to prospectively examine the recurrence of bleeding symptoms and clinical risk factors for future bleeding in patients with MBD, including patients with bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC).

METHODS

Bleeding symptoms of patients with MBD included in the Vienna Bleeding Biobank were re-evaluated at in-person follow-up visits or by mail.

RESULTS

In total, 392 patients, including 62.8% with BDUC, were investigated for the recurrence of bleeding events. During the follow-up time of median (IQR) 4.3 years (2.6-6.7), 72% of patients had at least 1 bleeding event. Most persistent bleeding manifestations were hematomas (n = 146/245, 59.6%) and bleeding from small wounds (n = 69/141, 48.9%), followed by epistaxis (n = 42/132, 31.8%), oral mucosal bleeding (n = 26/87, 29.9%), and joint bleeding (n = 7/14, 50.0%). Patients with previous postinterventional bleeding had a significantly increased risk for bleeding events after surgery (n = 33/114, 29.0 %) or tooth extraction (n = 16/39, 41.0%). A high bleeding score (OR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.05 to 2.94], per 1 unit) and follow-up time (OR [95% CI], 1.23 [1.12 to 1.36], per 1 year) were independently associated with any bleeding event. For bleeding after hemostatic challenges, blood group O (OR, 3.17 [1.57 to 6.40]), previous postsurgical bleeding (OR, 2.40 [1.06 to 5.46]), and an established diagnosis (OR, 2.07 [1.04 to 4.10]) were independent risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with MBD have a high risk for recurrent bleeding. This encourages prophylactic hemostatic treatment in patients with MBD, particularly when they face hemostatic challenges.

Outcomes and management of pregnancy in women with bleeding disorder of unknown cause

BACKGROUND

Patients with a bleeding tendency with normal laboratory tests have been described as having an unclassified bleeding disorder or bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC). There are very little data available on how to manage pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To study management and outcomes of these patients at four United Kingdom hemophilia comprehensive care centers.

METHODS

Retrospective case note review from 2010-2020.

RESULTS

Sixty deliveries in 36 patients were recorded. The median International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool score was 9. In 54 cases for which data were available, the odds ratio for post partum hemorrhage (PPH) was 6.3 for no primary hemostatic prophylaxis versus prophylaxis (95% confidence interval 1.2-34.2, p < .05); 7/9 (78%) versus 16/45 (36%) PPH incidence for the groups, respectively. Hemostatic prophylaxis was with tranexamic acid but some patients received desmopressin or platelet infusions. Secondary PPH was seen in 5/60 (8%) of cases. No neonatal bleeding complications or maternal thromboembolic complications were noted. Avoidance of regional anesthesia and fetal delivery precautions were commonly advised, but in the small number of cases in which they occurred no complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite hemostatic prophylaxis PPH was commonly seen. Further prospective studies of BDUC patients are required to determine optimal management in pregnancy as well as determine the pathophysiological basis of bleeding.

Current practice and registration patterns among United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors' Organisation centers for patients with unclassified bleeding disorders

BACKGROUND

Bleeding of unknown cause (BUC) and unclassified bleeding disorders (UBD) are increasingly recognized. There is no guidance on diagnosis and management.

OBJECTIVES

To examine UK haemophilia centre registration patterns and current practice for UBD patients.

METHODS

In a two-step process, the UK National Haemophilia Database (NHD) was reviewed for registration patterns of UBD patients and a survey of UK haemophilia centers was conducted (January/February 2021) to capture current practice for diagnosis and management of patients with UBD.

RESULTS/DISCUSSION

Overall, registrations with the NHD for UBD patients has sharply risen from 2012 to 2020 and in 2019 accounted for 2.65% of registered patients. For the survey, the response rate was 52/67 (78%). Practice was widely variable; 35/52 (67%) centers register UBD; among these 35 centers, terminology included UBD (28 centers), undiagnosed bleeding disorder (four centers), and BUC (three centers); 34/52 (65%) centers use a formal bleeding assessment tool. For management of dental extraction and high bleeding risk surgery in a fictional UBD patient we found that tranexamic acid was widely used; however, beyond this a variety of hemostatic products were advised including blood products, recombinant factor VIIa/prothrombin complex concentrate, and desmopressin. There was general consensus (≈90%) on avoiding regional anesthesia in pregnancy, but no agreement on the need for fetal precautions to avoid bleeding at delivery (50% would advise these). There was a disparity of opinion on chemical thromboprophylaxis, and management of patients without prior hemostatic challenges and offspring of these patients.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a snapshot of current practice and real-world data in this area. Future studies need to address the gaps in evidence.