Coordination of oral anticoagulant care at hospital discharge (COACHeD): pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a focused, expert medication management intervention is feasible and potentially effective in preventing anticoagulation-related adverse events for patients transitioning from hospital to home. DESIGN: Randomised, parallel design. SETTING: Medical wards at six hospital sites in southern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Adults 18 years of age or older being discharged to home on an oral anticoagulant (OAC) to be taken for at least 4 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical pharmacologist-led intervention, including a detailed discharge medication management plan, a circle of care handover and early postdischarge virtual check-up visits to 1 month with 3-month follow-up. The control group received the usual care. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcomes were study feasibility outcomes (recruitment, retention and cost per patient). Secondary outcomes included adverse anticoagulant safety events composite, quality of transitional care, quality of life, anticoagulant knowledge, satisfaction with care, problems with medications and health resource utilisation. RESULTS: Extensive periods of restriction of recruitment plus difficulties accessing patients at the time of discharge negatively impacted feasibility, especially cost per patient recruited. Of 845 patients screened, 167 were eligible and 56 were randomised. The mean age (±SD) was 71.2±12.5 years, 42.9% females, with two lost to follow-up. Intervention patients were more likely to rate their ability to manage their OAC as improved (17/27 (63.0%) vs 7/22 (31.8%), OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 12.0)) and their continuity of care as improved (21/27 (77.8%) vs 2/22 (9.1%), OR 35.0 (95% CI 6.3 to 194.2)). Fewer intervention patients were taking one or more inappropriate medications (7 (22.5%) vs 15 (60%), OR 0.19 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.62)). CONCLUSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial suggests that a transitional care intervention at hospital discharge for older adults taking OACs was well received and potentially effective for some surrogate outcomes, but overly costly to proceed to a definitive large trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02777047.

2023 ISTH update of the 2022 ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19.

Based on emerging evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19 were published in 2022. Since then, at least 16 new randomized controlled trials have contributed additional evidence, which necessitated a modification of most of the previous recommendations. We used again the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology for assessment of level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Five recommendations had the LOE upgraded to A and 2 new recommendations on antithrombotic treatment for patients with COVID-19 were added. Furthermore, a section was added to answer questions about COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT), for which studies have provided some evidence. We only included recommendations with LOE A or B. Panelists agreed on 19 recommendations, 4 for nonhospitalized, 5 for noncritically ill hospitalized, 3 for critically ill hospitalized, and 2 for postdischarge patients, as well as 5 for vaccination and VITT. A strong recommendation (COR 1) was given for (a) use of prophylactic dose of low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic-dose low-molecular-weight heparin/unfractionated heparin in preference to prophylactic dose, and (c) for use of antiplatelet factor 4 enzyme immunoassays for diagnosing VITT. A strong recommendation was given against (COR 3) the addition of an antiplatelet agent in hospitalized, noncritically ill patients. These international guidelines provide recommendations for countries with diverse healthcare resources and COVID-19 vaccine availability.

Algorithm for Rapid Exclusion of Clinically Relevant Plasma Levels of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients Using the DOAC Dipstick: An Expert Consensus Paper.

BACKGROUND: With the widespread use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), there is an urgent need for a rapid assay to exclude clinically relevant plasma levels. Accurate and rapid determination of DOAC levels would guide medical decision-making to (1) determine the potential contribution of the DOAC to spontaneous or trauma-induced hemorrhage; (2) identify appropriate candidates for reversal, or (3) optimize the timing of urgent surgery or intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: The DOAC Dipstick test uses a disposable strip to identify factor Xa- or thrombin inhibitors in a urine sample. Based on the results of a systematic literature search followed by an analysis of a simple pooling of five retrieved clinical studies, the test strip has a high sensitivity and an acceptably high negative predictive value when compared with levels measured with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry or calibrated chromogenic assays to reliably exclude plasma DOAC concentrations ≥30 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: Based on these data, a simple algorithm is proposed to enhance medical decision-making in acute care indications useful primarily in hospitals not having readily available quantitative tests and 24/7. This algorithm not only determines DOAC exposure but also differentiates between factor Xa and thrombin inhibitors to better guide clinical management.

Periprocedural management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and active cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are common concurrent disorders. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are prescribed to prevent stroke in patients with AF. Patients with cancer often undergo invasive procedures for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes, necessitating interruption of anticoagulation. There are limited data to guide best periprocedural anticoagulation management practices in the setting of active cancer. OBJECTIVES: To describe patient characteristics, periprocedural management, and clinical outcomes in DOAC-treated patients with AF according to active cancer status. METHODS: We conducted descriptive and comparative analyses using data from the PAUSE study. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether active cancer status was an independent risk factor for bleeding outcomes. Covariates were selected a priori based on biological rationale and preexisting knowledge. RESULTS: Patients with active cancer were older (P < .001), more likely to be thrombocytopenic (P = .026), have moderate renal dysfunction (P = .005), and more likely to receive low-dose DOAC therapy (P < .001). A greater proportion of patients with active cancer underwent a high-bleed-risk procedure (P < .001), with longer periprocedural DOAC-interruption intervals (P <.001) and lower preprocedural residual DOAC levels (P = .002). Active cancer was an independent predictor for surgical major bleeding (OR = 2.45; 95% CI, 1.08-5.14) after adjusting for study center, procedure category and bleed risk, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and the use of a P2Y12 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Active cancer status is associated with an increased risk of surgical major bleeding among DOAC-treated patients with AF undergoing interruption of anticoagulation for elective invasive procedures.

Outcomes of Patients with a Mechanical Heart Valve and Poor Anticoagulation Control on Warfarin.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a mechanical heart valve (MHV) require oral anticoagulation. Poor anticoagulation control is thought to be associated with adverse outcomes, but data are limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks of clinical outcomes in patients with a MHV and poor anticoagulation control on warfarin. PATIENTS/METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing MHV implantation at a tertiary care center (2010-2019). Primary outcome was a composite of ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or prosthetic valve thrombosis. Major bleeding and death were key secondary outcomes. We constructed multivariable regression models to assess the association between time in therapeutic range (TTR) on warfarin beyond 90 days after surgery with outcomes. RESULTS: We included 671 patients with a MHV (80.6% in aortic, 14.6% in mitral position; mean age 61 years, 30.3% female). Median follow-up was 4.9 years, mean TTR was 62.5% (14.5% TTR <40%, 24.6% TTR 40-60%, and 61.0% TTR >60%). Overall rates of the primary outcome, major bleeding, and death were 0.73, 1.41, and 1.44 per 100 patient-years. Corresponding rates for patients with TTR <40% were 1.31, 2.77, and 3.22 per 100 patient-years. In adjusted analyses, every 10% decrement in TTR was associated with a 31% increase in hazard for the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-1.52), 34% increase in major bleeding (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.17-1.52), and 32% increase in death (HR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11-1.57). CONCLUSION: In contemporary patients with a MHV, poor anticoagulation control on warfarin was associated with increased risks of thrombotic events, bleeding, and death.

TILE pilot trial study protocol: Tinzaparin Lead-in to Prevent the Post-Thrombotic syndrome study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a form of chronic venous insufficiency due to a prior ipsilateral deep venous thrombosis (DVT). This is a frequent complication that develops in 20%-50% of patients after a proximal DVT and is associated with significant healthcare, economic and societal consequences. In the absence of effective and well-tolerated treatment options for established PTS, effective preventative measures are needed. Anticoagulation itself reduces the risk of PTS, and low-molecular-weight heparin may reduce this further through anti-inflammatory properties targeting the initial acute inflammatory phase of DVT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Tinzaparin Lead-In to Prevent the Post-Thrombotic syndrome pilot trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label assessor-blinded trial that will randomise patients with first acute symptomatic common femoral or iliac DVT to receive either a 3-week lead-in course of tinzaparin, followed by rivaroxaban (experimental arm) or rivaroxaban alone (control arm). Its primary objectives are to assess: (1) proportion of PTS at 6 months using the Villalta scale and (2) study feasibility, which consists of (a) the proportion of screened patients eligible for the study, (2) the proportion of eligible patients recruited and (c) the proportion of recruited patients adherent to treatment (defined as at least 80% of drug taken). This study will determine the feasibility of a subsequent larger definitive trial. Secondary outcomes include change of quality of life scores, PTS severity, global improvement, patient satisfaction, bleeding, recurrent venous thromboembolism, leg pain, death and lost to follow-up. Target recruitment will be a total of 60 participants, recruited at 5-6 centres. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Primary ethics approval was received from the Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center Research Ethics Board (approval ID 3315). Results of the study will be disseminated via peer-reviewed presentation at scientific conferences and open access publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04794569.

Antithrombotic management of patients with deep vein thrombosis and venous stents: an international registry.

BACKGROUND: In patients with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) treated with catheter-based thrombolysis and venous stenting, poststenting anticoagulant management is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To determine the type and duration of antithrombotic therapy used in patients who have received venous stents for treatment of acute lower extremity DVT. METHODS: We created an international registry of patients with leg DVT from 2005 to 2019 who received venous stents as part of their acute management. We collected data on baseline clinical characteristics and pre-venous and post-venous stent antithrombotic therapy. RESULTS: We studied 173 patients with venous stents: 101 (58%) were aged ≤50 years, 105 (61%) were female, and 128 (74%) had risk factors for thrombotic disease. DVT was iliofemoral in 150 (87%) patients, and catheter-based treatment was given within 7 days of diagnosis in 92 (53%) patients. After venous stenting, 109 (63%) patients received anticoagulant-only therapy with a direct oral anticoagulant (29%), warfarin (22%), or low-molecular-weight heparin (10%), and 59 (34%) received anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy. In patients taking anticoagulant-only therapy, 29% received indefinite treatment; in patients on anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy, 19% received indefinite treatment. Factors associated with combined anticoagulant-antiplatelet therapy vs anticoagulant-only therapy were use of thrombolytic, thrombectomy, and aspiration interventions (odds ratio [OR], 5.11; 95% CI, 1.45-18.05); use of balloon angioplasty (OR, 2.62; 95% CI, 1.20-5.76); and immediate stent restenosis (OR, 7.2; 95% CI, 1.45-5.89). CONCLUSION: Anticoagulant therapy without concomitant antiplatelet therapy appears to be the most common antithrombotic strategy in patients with DVT and venous stenting. More research is needed to determine outcomes of venous stenting in relation to antithrombotic therapy.

Association of type of oral anticoagulation with risk of bleeding in 45,114 patients with venous thromboembolism during initial and extended treatment-A nationwide register-based study.

BACKGROUND: Safety data for different anticoagulant medications in venous thromboembolism (VTE) are scarce, in particular for extended treatment. OBJECTIVES: To compare major bleeding rates depending on the choice of anticoagulation during initial (first 6 months) and extended treatment (6 months up to 5 years). METHODS: A nationwide register-based study including cancer-free patients with a first-time VTE between 2014 and 2020. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare bleeding rates. RESULTS: We included 6558 patients on warfarin, 18,196 on rivaroxaban, and 19,498 on apixaban. At 6 months, 4750 (72.4%) remained on warfarin, 11,366 (62.5%) on rivaroxaban, and 11,940 (61.2%) on apixaban. During initial treatment, major bleeding rates were 3.86 (95% CI 3.14-4.58), 2.93 (2.55-3.31), and 1.95 (1.65-2.25) per 100 patient-years for warfarin, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively, yielding adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.71-1.12) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 0.55 (0.43-0.71) for apixaban versus warfarin, and 0.62 (0.50-0.76) for apixaban versus rivaroxaban. During extended treatment, major bleeding rates were 1.55 (1.19-1.91), 1.05 (0.85-1.26), and 0.96 (0.78-1.15) per 100 patient-years for warfarin, rivaroxaban, and apixaban, respectively, with aHRs of 0.72 (0.53-0.99) for rivaroxaban versus warfarin, 0.60 (0.44-0.82) for apixaban versus warfarin, and 0.85 (0.64-1.12) for apixaban versus rivaroxaban. Previous bleeding and increasing age were risk factors for bleeding both during initial and extended treatment. CONCLUSION: Apixaban had a lower bleeding risk than warfarin or rivaroxaban during initial treatment. During extended treatment, bleeding risk was similar for apixaban and rivaroxaban, and higher with warfarin.

Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review.

Background With a trend toward greater virtual care in selected clinical settings, perioperative anticoagulant management appears well suited for this care delivery model. We explored the potential for virtual care among patients who are receiving anticoagulant therapy and require perioperative management around the time of an elective surgery/procedure. Methods We undertook a retrospective review of patients who were receiving anticoagulant therapy, either a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) or warfarin, assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation-bridging clinic over a 5-year period from 2016 to 2020. Using prespecified criteria, we determined the proportion of patients who likely would be suitable for virtual care (receiving a DOAC or warfarin and having a minimal- or low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure), those who likely would be suitable for in-person care (receiving warfarin and requiring heparin bridging for a mechanical heart valve), and patients who would be suitable for either care delivery model (receiving a DOAC or warfarin, but not with a mechanical heart valve, and requiring a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure). Results During the 5-year study period, there were 4,609 patients assessed for perioperative anticoagulant management in whom the most widely used anticoagulants were warfarin (37%), apixaban (30%), and rivaroxaban (24%). Within each year assessed, 4 to 20% of all patients were undergoing a minimal-bleed-risk procedure, 76 to 82% were undergoing a low-/moderate-bleed-risk surgery/procedure, and 10 to 39% were undergoing a high-bleed-risk surgery/procedure. The proportion of patients considered suitable for virtual, in-person, or either virtual or in-person management was 79.6, 7.1, and 13.3%, respectively. Conclusion In patients who were assessed in a perioperative anticoagulation clinic, there was a high proportion of patients in whom a virtual care model might be suitable.

Management of patients on antithrombotic therapy with severe infections: a joint clinical consensus statement of the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis, the ESC Working Group on Atherosclerosis and Vascular Biology, and the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.

Patients with severe infections and a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy, i.e. antiplatelet agents, anticoagulant drugs, or their combinations, require integrated clinical counselling among coagulation, infectious disease, and cardiology specialists, due to sepsis-induced coagulopathy that frequently occurs. Bacterial and viral pathogens constitute an increasing threat to global public health, especially for patients with ongoing antithrombotic treatment who have a high risk of thrombotic recurrences and high susceptibility to severe infections with increased morbidity and mortality. Similarly, sepsis survivors are at increased risk for major vascular events. Coagulopathy, which often complicates severe infections, is associated with a high mortality and obligates clinicians to adjust antithrombotic drug type and dosing to avoid bleeding while preventing thrombotic complications. This clinical consensus statement reviews the best available evidence to provide expert opinion and statements on the management of patients hospitalized for severe bacterial or viral infections with a pre-existing indication for antithrombotic therapy (single or combined), in whom sepsis-induced coagulopathy is often observed. Balancing the risk of thrombosis and bleeding in these patients and preventing infections with vaccines, if available, are crucial to prevent events or improve outcomes and prognosis.

Antithrombotic therapy in the management of hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at a significantly higher risk of having thromboembolic events while in hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. Based on early data from observational studies, multiple high quality randomised controlled trials have been conducted worldwide to evaluate optimal thromboprophylaxis regimens to reduce thromboembolism and other COVID-19-related adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis has published evidence-based guideline recommendations using established methodology for the management of antithrombotic therapy of COVID-19 patients, both in-hospital and in the immediate post-hospital discharge period. A good clinical practice statement supplemented these guidelines based on topics for which there was no or limited high-quality evidence. This review summarises the main recommendations of these documents to serve as a quick access tool for hospital doctors to use in their everyday practice when treating COVID-19 patients.

Anticoagulant Management and Outcomes in Nontraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Complicated by Venous Thromboembolism: A Retrospective Chart Review.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on anticoagulant management of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) after spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively all cases diagnosed with VTE during hospitalization for spontaneous ICH at our center during 15 years. Anticoagulation management outcomes were (1) timing after ICH of anticoagulant initiation for VTE treatment, (2) use of immediate therapeutic dosing or stepwise dose escalation, and (3) the proportion achieving therapeutic dose. Primary clinical effectiveness outcome was recurrent VTE. Primary safety outcome was expanding ICH. RESULTS: We analyzed 103 cases with VTE after 11 days (median; interquartile range [IQR]: 7-22) from the diagnosis of ICH. Forty patients (39%) achieved therapeutic anticoagulation 21.5 days (median; IQR: 14-34 days) from the ICH. Of those, 14 (35%; 14% of total) received immediately therapeutic dose and 26 (65%; 25% of total) had stepwise escalation. Anticoagulation was more aggressive in patients with VTE >14 days after admission versus those with earlier VTE diagnosis. Twenty-two patients (21%) experienced recurrent/progressive VTE-less frequently among patients with treatment escalation within 7 days or with no escalation than with escalation >7 days from the VTE. There were 19 deaths 6 days (median; IQR: 3.5-15) after the index VTE, with significantly higher in-hospital mortality rate among patients without escalation in anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Prompt therapeutic anticoagulation for acute VTE seems safe when occurring more than 14 days after spontaneous ICH. For VTE occurring earlier, it might also be safe with therapeutic anticoagulation, but stepwise dose escalation to therapeutic within a 7-day period might be preferable.

Clinical course and treatment of incidentally detected splanchnic vein thrombosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical relevance and management of incidental splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) remain poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the clinical course of incidental SVT in comparison with symptomatic SVT and assess the safety and effectiveness of anticoagulant treatment in incidental SVT. METHODS: Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials or prospective studies published up to June 2021. Efficacy outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) and all-cause mortality. The safety outcome was major bleeding. Incidence rate ratios and 95% CIs for incidental vs symptomatic SVT were estimated before and after propensity-score matching. Multivariable Cox models were used considering anticoagulant treatment as a time-varying covariate. RESULTS: In total, 493 patients with incidental SVT and 493 propensity-matched patients with symptomatic SVT were analyzed. Patients with incidental SVT were less likely to receive anticoagulant treatment (72.4% vs 83.6%). Incidence rate ratios (95% CI) for major bleeding, recurrent VTE, and all-cause mortality in patients with incidental SVT compared with symptomatic SVT were 1.3 (0.8, 2.2), 2.0 (1.2, 3.3), and 0.5 (0.4, 0.7), respectively. In patients with incidental SVT, anticoagulant therapy was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR] 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.71), recurrent VTE (HR 0.33; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61), and all-cause mortality (HR 0.23; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.35). CONCLUSION: Patients with incidental SVT appeared to have a similar risk of major bleeding, a higher risk of recurrent thrombosis, but lower all-cause mortality than patients with symptomatic SVT. Anticoagulant therapy seemed safe and effective in patients with incidental SVT.

Direct oral anticoagulants versus vitamin K antagonists in the first 3 months after bioprosthetic valve replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in the first 90 days after bioprosthetic valve implantation. METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, Medline and CENTRAL. We screened titles, abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in duplicate. We pooled data using the Mantel-Haenzel method and random effects modelling. We conducted subgroup analyses based on the type of valve (transcatheter versus surgical) and timing of initiation of anticoagulation (<7 vs >7 days after valve implantation). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 4 studies of 2284 patients with a median follow-up of 12 months. Two studies examined transcatheter valves (1877/2284 = 83%) and 2 examined surgical valves (407/2284 = 17%). We found no statistically significant differences between DOACs and VKAs with regard to thrombosis, bleeding, death or subclinical valve thrombosis. However, there was a subgroup trend towards more bleeding with DOACs when initiated within 7 days of valve implantation. CONCLUSIONS: In the existing randomized literature on DOACs versus VKAs in the first 90 days after bioprosthetic valve implantation, there appears to be no difference with regard to thrombosis, bleeding or death. Interpretation of the data is limited by small numbers of events and wide confidence intervals. Future studies should focus on surgical valves and should include long-term follow-up to assess any potential impact of randomized therapy on valve durability.

Effect of perioperative benzodiazepine use on intraoperative awareness and postoperative delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepine use is associated with delirium, and guidelines recommend avoiding them in older and critically ill patients. Their perioperative use remains common because of perceived benefits. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science from inception to June 2021. Pairs of reviewers identified randomised controlled trials and prospective observational studies comparing perioperative use of benzodiazepines with other agents or placebo in patients undergoing surgery. Two reviewers independently abstracted data, which we combined using a random-effects model. Our primary outcomes were delirium, intraoperative awareness, and mortality. RESULTS: We included 34 randomised controlled trials (n=4354) and nine observational studies (n=3309). Observational studies were considered separately. Perioperative benzodiazepines did not increase the risk of delirium (n=1352; risk ratio [RR] 1.43; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-2.27; I2=72%; P=0.13; very low-quality evidence). Use of benzodiazepines instead of dexmedetomidine did, however, increase the risk of delirium (five studies; n=429; RR 1.83; 95% CI: 1.24-2.72; I2=13%; P=0.002). Perioperative benzodiazepine use decreased the risk of intraoperative awareness (n=2245; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12-0.58; I2=35%; P=0.001; very low-quality evidence). When considering non-events, perioperative benzodiazepine use increased the probability of not having intraoperative awareness (RR 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13; I2=98%; P=0.03; very low-quality evidence). Mortality was reported by one randomised controlled trial (n=800; RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.20-3.1; P=0.80; very low quality). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, perioperative benzodiazepine use did not increase postoperative delirium and decreased intraoperative awareness. Previously observed relationships of benzodiazepine use with delirium could be explained by comparisons with dexmedetomidine. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42019128144.

The risk of major bleeding in patients with factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A gene mutation while on extended anticoagulant treatment for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Thrombophilia predisposes to venous thromboembolism (VTE) because of acquired or hereditary factors. Among them, it has been suggested that gene mutations of the factor V Leiden (FVL) or prothrombin G20210A mutation (PGM) might reduce the risk of bleeding, but little data exist for patients treated using anticoagulants. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether thrombophilia is protective against bleeding. METHODS: This multicentre, multinational, prospective cohort study evaluated adults receiving long-term anticoagulants after a VTE event. We analyzed the incidence of major bleeding as the primary outcome, according to the genotype for FVL and PGM (wild-type and heterozygous/homozygous carriers). RESULTS: Of 2260 patients with genotype testing, during a median follow-up of 3 years, 106 patients experienced a major bleeding event (17 intracranial and 7 fatal). Among 439 carriers of FVL, 19 experienced major bleeding and there were no differences between any mutation vs wild-type (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [0.53-1.49]; p = .66). The comparison of major bleeding events between the 158 patients with any-PGM mutation (heterozygous or homozygous) vs wild-type also showed a nonstatistically significant difference with HR of 0.53 (0.19-1.43), p = .21. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that major bleeds or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were statistically less likely for patients with either FVL and/or PGM compared with patients with both wild-type factor V and prothrombin genes (HR, 0.73; 95% CI = 0.55-0.97; p = .03). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that thrombophilia, defined as the presence of either FVL or the prothrombin G20210A mutation, is related with a lower rate of major/clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding while on anticoagulants in the extended treatment for VTE.

How Did We Get Here? Antithrombotic Therapy after Bioprosthetic Aortic Valve Replacement: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: Aortic stenosis is the most common valvular disease, and more than 90% of patients who undergo aortic valve replacement receive a bioprosthetic valve. Yet optimal antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement remains uncertain, and guidelines provide contradictory recommendations. OBSERVATIONS: Randomized studies of antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement are small and underpowered. Observational data present opposing, and likely confounded, results. Historically, changes to guidelines have not been informed by high-quality new data. Current guidelines from different professional bodies provide contradictory recommendations despite citing the same evidence. CONCLUSION: Insufficient antithrombotic therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement has serious implications: ischemic stroke, systemic arterial thromboembolism, and clinical and subclinical valve thromboses. Unnecessarily intense antithrombotic therapy, however, increases risk of bleeding and associated morbidity and mortality. Professional bodies have used the current low-quality evidence and generated incongruent recommendations. Researchers should prioritize generating high-quality, randomized evidence evaluating the risks and benefits of antiplatelet versus anticoagulant therapy after bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement.