Rebleeding and Mortality After Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding in Patients Taking Antiplatelets or Anticoagulants

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Patients who develop lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) while receiving anticoagulants or anti-platelets have increased severity of bleeding and risk of rebleeding. We compared outcomes of patients receiving antiplatelets, anticoagulants, or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) who develop LGIB, as well as the effects of withholding these drugs on their course of bleeding.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 2528 consecutive adult patients with LGIB at 143 hospitals in the United Kingdom, from September through December 2015; 917 were taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs and 1218 were taking neither (unexposed). We collected data on demographic features of patients, interventions or medications, outcomes, laboratory test results, and patient readmission until patient death, discharge, or 28 days after admission (whichever came first). Rebleeding was defined as additional transfusion requirements and/or a decrease in hematocrit ≥20% after 24 hrs of clinical stability. Multivariate regression was used to examine the relationship between drug class on presentation with LGIB and rebleeding, mortality, and cardiovascular events. Rates of rebleeding and cardiovascular complications in patients who had these drugs withheld were also analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients receiving antiplatelets, but not those receiving warfarin (n = 232) or DOACs (n = 102), had a higher risk of in-hospital rebleeding (monotherapy hazard ratio [HR], 3.57; 95% CI, 1.13-11.28; n = 504 and dual antiplatelet therapy hazard ratio, 5.3; 95% CI, 1.56-18.54; n = 79) compared with the unexposed group. This risk was not lower in patients who received antiplatelets and had the drug withheld for fewer than 5 days, compared to those who continued the drug throughout admission (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.45-2.17) No differences were observed in risk-adjusted mortality or readmission with further bleeding for patients receiving antiplatelets, DOACs, or warfarin. Cardiovascular events were too few to allow meaningful comparison.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LGIB, antiplatelet drugs, but not warfarin or DOACs, are associated with an increased risk of rebleeding. Withholding antiplatelets during admission does not lead to reduction in rebleeding.

Plasma transfusions prior to lumbar punctures and epidural catheters for people with abnormal coagulation

BACKGROUND

The insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter may be associated with peri- and post-procedural bleeding. People who require this procedure may have disorders of coagulation as a result of their underlying illness, co-morbidities or the effects of treatment. Clinical practice in some institutions is to mitigate the risk of bleeding in these patients by prophylactically transfusing plasma in order to correct clotting factor deficiencies prior to the procedure. However, plasma transfusion is not without risk, and it remains unclear whether this intervention is associated with reduced rates of bleeding or other clinically-meaningful outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of different prophylactic plasma transfusion regimens prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter in people with abnormal coagulation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCT) and controlled before-after studies (CBAs) in CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and five other electronic databases as well as ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for ongoing trials to 9 January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We planned to include RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs involving transfusions of plasma given to prevent bleeding in people of any age with a coagulopathy requiring insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter. If identified, we would have excluded uncontrolled studies, cross-sectional studies and case-control studies. We would only have included cluster-RCTs, non-randomised cluster trials, and CBAs with at least two intervention sites and two control sites. In studies with only one intervention or control site, the intervention (or comparison) is completely confounded by study site making it difficult to attribute any observed differences to the intervention rather than to other site-specific variables.We planned to exclude people with haemophilia as they should be treated with the appropriate factor concentrate. We also planned to exclude people on warfarin as guidelines recommend the use of prothrombin complex concentrate for emergency reversal of warfarin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified no completed or ongoing RCTs, non-RCTs, or CBAs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence from RCTs, non-RCTs, and CBAs to determine whether plasma transfusions are required prior to insertion of a lumbar puncture needle or epidural catheter, and, if plasma transfusions are required, what is the degree of coagulopathy at which they should be given. We would need to design a study with at least 47,030 participants to be able to detect an increase in the number of people who had bleeding after lumbar puncture or epidural anaesthetic from 1 in 1000 to 2 in 1000.

Desmopressin use for minimising perioperative blood transfusion

BACKGROUND

Blood transfusion is administered during many types of surgery, but its efficacy and safety are increasingly questioned. Evaluation of the efficacy of agents, such as desmopressin (DDAVP; 1-deamino-8-D-arginine-vasopressin), that may reduce perioperative blood loss is needed.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evidence for the efficacy of DDAVP in reducing perioperative blood loss and the need for red cell transfusion in people who do not have inherited bleeding disorders.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2017, issue 3) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1980), and ongoing trial databases (all searches to 3 April 2017).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing DDAVP to placebo or an active comparator (e.g. tranexamic acid, aprotinin) before, during, or immediately after surgery or after invasive procedures in adults or children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 65 completed trials (3874 participants) and four ongoing trials. Of the 65 completed trials, 39 focused on adult cardiac surgery, three on paediatric cardiac surgery, 12 on orthopaedic surgery, two on plastic surgery, and two on vascular surgery; seven studies were conducted in surgery for other conditions. These trials were conducted between 1986 and 2016, and 11 were funded by pharmaceutical companies or by a party with a commercial interest in the outcome of the trial.The GRADE quality of evidence was very low to moderate across all outcomes. No trial reported quality of life. DDAVP versus placebo or no treatmentTrial results showed considerable heterogeneity between surgical settings for total volume of red cells transfused (low-quality evidence) and for total blood loss (very low-quality evidence) due to large differences in baseline blood loss. Consequently, these outcomes were not pooled and were reported in subgroups.Compared with placebo, DDAVP may slightly decrease the total volume of red cells transfused in adult cardiac surgery (mean difference (MD) -0.52 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.96 to -0.08 units; 14 trials, 957 participants), but may lead to little or no difference in orthopaedic surgery (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.64 units; 6 trials, 303 participants), vascular surgery (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.60 to 0.73 units; 2 trials, 135 participants), or hepatic surgery (MD -0.47, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.33 units; 1 trial, 59 participants).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants transfused with blood (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.06; 25 trials; 1806 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP decreases total blood loss in adult cardiac surgery (MD -135.24 mL, 95% CI -210.80 mL to -59.68 mL; 22 trials, 1358 participants), orthopaedic surgery (MD -285.76 mL, 95% CI -514.99 mL to -56.53 mL; 5 trials, 241 participants), or vascular surgery (MD -582.00 mL, 95% CI -1264.07 mL to 100.07 mL; 1 trial, 44 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low.DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (Peto odds ratio (pOR) 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.34; 22 trials, 1631 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.36, 95% CI, 0.85 to 2.16; 29 trials, 1984 participants) (both low-quality evidence). DDAVP versus placebo or no treatment for people with platelet dysfunctionCompared with placebo, DDAVP may lead to a reduction in the total volume of red cells transfused (MD -0.65 units, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.13 units; 6 trials, 388 participants) (low-quality evidence) and in total blood loss (MD -253.93 mL, 95% CI -408.01 mL to -99.85 mL; 7 trials, 422 participants) (low-quality evidence).DDAVP probably leads to little or no difference in the total number of participants receiving a red cell transfusion (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04; 5 trials, 258 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in all-cause mortality (pOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.22; 7 trials; 422 participants) or in thrombotic events (pOR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; 7 trials, 422 participants) is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low. DDAVP versus tranexamic acidCompared with tranexamic acid, DDAVP may increase the volume of blood transfused (MD 0.6 units, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.11 units; 1 trial, 40 participants) and total blood loss (MD 142.81 mL, 95% CI 79.78 mL to 205.84 mL; 2 trials, 115 participants) (both low-quality evidence).Whether DDAVP increases or decreases the total number of participants transfused with blood is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.64; 3 trials, 135 participants).No trial reported all-cause mortality.Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 2.92, 95% CI 0.32 to 26.83; 2 trials, 115 participants). DDAVP versus aprotininCompared with aprotinin, DDAVP probably increases the total number of participants transfused with blood (RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.02; 1 trial, 99 participants) (moderate-quality evidence).No trials reported volume of blood transfused or total blood loss and the single trial that included mortality as an outcome reported no deaths.Whether DDAVP leads to a difference in thrombotic events is uncertain because the quality of evidence is very low (pOR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.89; 2 trials, 152 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Most of the evidence derived by comparing DDAVP versus placebo was obtained in cardiac surgery, where DDAVP was administered after cardiopulmonary bypass. In adults undergoing cardiac surgery, the reduction in volume of red cells transfused and total blood loss was small and was unlikely to be clinically important. It is less clear whether DDAVP may be of benefit for children and for those undergoing non-cardiac surgery. A key area for researchers is examining the effects of DDAVP for people with platelet dysfunction. Few trials have compared DDAVP versus tranexamic acid or aprotinin; consequently, we are uncertain of the relative efficacy of these interventions.

Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants

An understanding of how to counteract the anticoagulant effect of direct oral anticoagulants is essential in the event of haemorrhage, emergency surgery and overdose. This review summarizes strategies for the reversal of direct oral anticoagulants, including the use of novel agents.

Peri-procedural management of bleeding risks in critical care patients: A local audit and national survey

Estimation of bleeding risk in critical care patients undergoing interventional radiological procedures is frequently made on the basis of blood tests. If these tests are abnormal, fresh frozen plasma and/or platelet transfusions may be given to reduce the risk of bleeding. We performed an audit and national survey of the use of fresh frozen plasma and platelet transfusions prior to interventional radiological procedures. We identified 68 consecutive chest, abdominal or pelvic drain insertions in 54 critical care patients between 2008 and 2011 at a single intensive care unit. Eight (12.3%) patients were transfused fresh frozen plasma prior to drain insertion despite having a prothrombin time below 22 s. One patient with a prothrombin time above this threshold received fresh frozen plasma. One patient received a platelet transfusion, at double dose, despite a platelet count above 50 × 10⁹/l. A national survey of interventional radiologists demonstrated extensive variability in safe thresholds for invasive procedures and usage of fresh frozen plasma. There is a need for further clarification around coagulopathy and interventional radiology in the critical care setting.

Intravenous immunoglobulin-induced haemolysis: a case report and review of the literature

OBJECTIVES

To review the incidence and clinical features of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg)-induced haemolysis.

BACKGROUND

Haemolysis can be a severe complication of IVIg administration. It is due to the passive transfer of blood group antibodies and may result in significant anaemia and renal failure.

METHODS

We report a case of severe IVIg-induced haemolysis; review the data reported to vigilance groups (The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, European Union Drug Regulatory Authorities, Food and Drug Administration and the Canada Vigilance Centre) between January 1998 and May 2012; and systematically review IVIg-induced haemolysis case reports (between January 1948 and January 2013).

RESULTS

Nine hundred-twenty five cases of IVIg-induced haemolysis were identified from a review of cases reported to vigilance groups; 62 case reports were included in the systematic review. The majority of these were due to administration of doses of at least 2 g kg(-1) of IVIg (97%). IVIg-induced haemolysis was reported most commonly for patients with blood group A (65%) or AB (26%). One case report noted that in two patients with IVIg-induced haemolysis both received IVIg from the same batch.

CONCLUSION

We make the following recommendations for the management of suspected cases of IVIg-induced haemolysis: Stop IVIg infusion and perform tests for haemolysis. Check titres of anti-blood group antibodies in IVIg. Provide supportive management for patient with fluid and/or red blood cell transfusions if necessary. Consider quarantine of the IVIg batch if found to be high titre for anti-A/B. Report reaction to regulatory/vigilance body.