When cardiovascular medicines should be discontinued.

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

Apixaban for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data evaluating the safety or efficacy of apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The RENAL-AF trial (Renal Hemodialysis Patients Allocated Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation) was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome evaluation (PROBE) of apixaban versus warfarin in patients receiving hemodialysis with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 mg of apixaban twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily for patients ≥80 years of age, weight ≤60 kg, or both) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The primary outcome was time to major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke, mortality, and apixaban pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic sampling was day 1, day 3, and month 1. RESULTS: From January 2017 through January 2019, 154 patients were randomly assigned to apixaban (n=82) or warfarin (n=72). The trial stopped prematurely because of enrollment challenges. Time in therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) for warfarin-treated patients was 44% (interquartile range, 23%-59%). The 1-year rates for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 32% and 26% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.63-2.30]), whereas 1-year rates for stroke or systemic embolism were 3.0% and 3.3% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively. Death was the most common major event in the apixaban (21 patients [26%]) and warfarin (13 patients [18%]) arms. The pharmacokinetic substudy enrolled the target 50 patients. Median steady-state 12-hour area under the curve was 2475 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 1342-3285) for 5 mg of apixaban twice daily and 1269 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 615-1946) for 2.5 mg of apixaban twice daily. There was substantial overlap between minimum apixaban blood concentration, 12-hour area under the curve, and maximum apixaban blood concentration for patients with and without a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: There was inadequate power to draw any conclusion regarding rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding comparing apixaban and warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Clinically relevant bleeding events were ≈10-fold more frequent than stroke or systemic embolism among this population on anticoagulation, highlighting the need for future randomized studies evaluating the risks versus benefits of anticoagulation among patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02942407.

Cangrelor Use Patterns and Transition to Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction: Initial Results From the CAMEO Registry.

Background In clinical trials, cangrelor has been shown to reduce percutaneous coronary intervention-related ischemic complications without increasing major bleeding. This study was performed to examine cangrelor use and transition to oral P2Y12 inhibitors in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results The CAMEO (Cangrelor in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Effectiveness and Outcomes) registry is a multicenter, retrospective observational study of platelet inhibition strategies for patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In phase 1, data were collected on consecutive patients with myocardial infarction (n=482) treated with any P2Y12 inhibitor to understand cangrelor use by hospital. In phase 2, data were collected in a 2:1 (cangrelor-: non-cangrelor-treated) ratio of patients with myocardial infarction (n=873). In phase 1, cangrelor use varied across hospitals (overall, 50.4% [range, 6.0%-100%]). Of patients receiving cangrelor in both phases (n=819), 3.3% received either the bolus or infusion only. Cangrelor was infused for a median of 121 (76-196) minutes; and 38.3% received an infusion for <2 hours. Most patients transitioned from cangrelor to ticagrelor (ticagrelor, 85.3%; clopidogrel, 9.5%; prasugrel, 5.2%). Many patients (16.4%) had a >1-hour gap between cangrelor cessation and oral P2Y12 inhibitor initiation; this was highest among those transitioned to clopidogrel (56.6% versus 34.5% prasugrel versus 10.8% ticagrelor; P<0.001). Only 27.3% were dosed with cangrelor and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor in a fashion consistent with the pivotal trials and US Food and Drug Administration label. Conclusions This multicenter registry demonstrated interhospital variability in how cangrelor was administered and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor. These findings highlight opportunities for optimization of cangrelor dosing, infusion duration, and transition of care from the catheterization laboratory to the ward setting.

Bridging Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Patients undergoing early surgery after coronary stent implantation are at increased risk for mortality from ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. The optimal antiplatelet strategy in patients who cannot discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) before surgery is unclear. Current guidelines, based on surgical and clinical characteristics, provide risk stratification for bridging therapy with intravenous antiplatelet agents, but management is guided primarily by expert opinion. This review summarizes perioperative risk factors to consider before discontinuing DAPT and reviews the data for intravenous bridging therapies. Published reports have included bridging options such as small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (eptifibatide or tirofiban) and cangrelor, an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor. However, optimal management of these complex patients remains unclear in the absence of randomized controlled data, without which an argument can be made both for and against the use of perioperative intravenous bridging therapy after discontinuing oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care.

Prevention of Complications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non-CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

Patterns of amiodarone use and outcomes in clinical practice for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) for atrial fibrillation (AF), but it has a high incidence of adverse effects. METHODS: Using the ORBIT AF registry, patients with AF on amiodarone at enrollment, prescribed amiodarone during follow-up, or never on amiodarone were analyzed for the proportion treated with a guideline-based indication for amiodarone, the variability in amiodarone use across sites, and the outcomes (mortality, hospitalization, and stroke) among patients treated with amiodarone. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling with site-specific random intercepts compared rates of amiodarone use across 170 sites. A logistic regression model for propensity to receive amiodarone created a propensity-matched cohort. Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by matched pairs evaluated the association between amiodarone and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 6,987 AF patients, 867 (12%) were on amiodarone at baseline and 451 (6%) started on incident amiodarone during the 3-year follow-up. Use of amiodarone varied among sites from 3% in the lowest tertile to 21% in the highest (p<0.0001). Among those treated, 32% had documented contraindications to other AADs or had failed another AAD in the past. Mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke were similar among matched patients on and not on amiodarone at baseline, while incident amiodarone use in matched patients was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.35-3.16). CONCLUSIONS: Use of amiodarone among AF patients in community practice is highly variable. More than 2 out of 3 patients treated with amiodarone appeared to be eligible for a different AAD.

Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Oral Anticoagulants in the ARISTOTLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. METHODS: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11-2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16-2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

Interacting medication use and the treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin: results from the ARISTOTLE Trial.

Warfarin is dependent on multiple hepatic enzymes for metabolism while apixaban is a substrate for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transport and hepatic CYP3A4 metabolism. The aim of this analysis was to assess the impact of interacting medication use on the treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin. Outcomes were compared between apixaban and warfarin using Cox proportional hazards modeling according to the use of interacting medications at randomization in ARISTOTLE (n = 18,201). Interacting medications for apixaban were identified as combined P-gp and 3A4 inhibitors or inducers while interacting medications for warfarin were defined as those highly probable for warfarin potentiation or inhibition. At randomization, 5547 (30.5%) patients were on an interacting medication, including 2722 on apixaban and 2825 on warfarin. Patients using an interacting medication were more likely to be female, taking aspirin, and have a history of prior bleeding and were less likely to have a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. No significant differences were observed on the treatment effect of apixaban compared with warfarin in patients on and off interacting medications for outcomes including the primary efficacy outcome of stroke or systemic embolism (P for interaction = 0.79) or the primary safety outcome of major bleeding (P for interaction = 0.75). Use of interacting medications with anticoagulants occurs often in patients with atrial fibrillation. Despite the potential for altered exposure, interacting medication use was not associated with a significant change in the efficacy or safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in the ARISTOTLE trial.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00412984.

Pharmacotherapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Insights From ORBIT-AF.

Background Chronic kidney disease ( CKD ) is a common comorbidity in patients with atrial fibrillation. The presence of CKD complicates drug selection for stroke prevention and rhythm control. Methods and Results Patients enrolled in ORBIT AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) with baseline renal function and follow-up data were included (N=9019). CKD was defined as an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patient characteristics were compared by CKD status, and Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to examine the association between oral anticoagulant ( OAC ) use and outcomes and antiarrhythmic drug use and outcomes stratified by CKD stages. At enrollment, 3490 (39%) patients had an estimated creatinine clearance <60 mL /min. Patients with CKD were older and had higher CHA 2 DS 2 VAS c and Anticoagulant and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation (ATRIA) scores. A rhythm control strategy was selected less frequently in patients with CKD , while OAC use was lower among Stage IV and V CKD patients. After adjustment, no significant interaction was noted for OAC and CKD on all-cause mortality ( P=0.5442) or cardiovascular death ( P=0.1233), although a trend for increased major bleeding ( P=0.0608) and stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P=0.0671) was observed. No interaction was noted for antiarrhythmic drug use and CKD status on all-cause mortality ( P=0.9706), or stroke, systemic embolism or transient ischemic attack ( P=0.4218). Conclusions Patients with atrial fibrillation and CKD are less likely to be treated with rhythm control. Patients with advanced CKD are less likely to receive OAC . Finally, outcomes with OAC in patients with advanced CKD may be materially different with higher rates of both bleeding and stroke.

Anticoagulants: Pharmacokinetics, Mechanisms of Action, and Indications.

Anticoagulant medications are used widely for a variety of medical and surgical diseases, disorders, and conditions associated with thrombosis and thromboembolism. This review highlights labeled indications, mechanisms of action, potential drug interactions, and specific pharmacokinetic characteristics of available anticoagulants as an essential foundation for guiding selection and management of therapies for patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures.

Is There Still a Role for Digoxin in the Management of Atrial Fibrillation?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A number of recent observational analyses have assessed clinical outcomes associated with digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation. In this review, we review these data and provide suggestions on the contemporary use of digoxin in patients with atrial fibrillation as supported by the recent evidence. RECENT FINDINGS: Observational data from clinical trials and registries have provided variable results on the safety and efficacy of chronic digoxin use in patients with atrial fibrillation. In general, results have been consistent with an associated increase in adverse clinical outcomes with digoxin use in atrial fibrillation patients without heart failure. In atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure, while the weight of evidence suggested an associated risk with digoxin therapy, the results are inconsistent. In patients with atrial fibrillation without heart failure, digoxin should generally be avoided. In atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure, digoxin should generally be reserved for patients that do not achieve adequate rate control or are not tolerant of other rate control therapies.

Cangrelor use prior to left ventricular assist device surgery: a case series.

Bleeding frequently occurs in patients undergoing placement of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD). Clinical factors that have been identified as contributing to peri-procedural bleeding include LVAD implantation after an acute myocardial infarction and preoperative use of antiplatelet agents. In this report, we describe the use of cangrelor for preoperative antiplatelet bridging to LVAD in five post myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock that had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention. During the cangrelor bridging period, no cases of thrombotic or major bleeding events occurred. During the first week following LVAD implantation, two patients experienced a major bleeding (each case required chest exploration for suspected hemorrhage). To our knowledge, this is the first series describing cangrelor use for antiplatelet bridging in patients undergoing LVAD implantation. While this series suggest cangrelor could possibly be a safe and effective antiplatelet bridging strategy, further research is needed to identify the optimal antithrombotic strategy in cardiogenic shock patients undergoing LVAD implantation who have recently undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Anticoagulant Use Among Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have largely been excluded from trials of antithrombotic therapies leaving little data to guide agent choice in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry was used to identify patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing PCI who received monotherapy with either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin (UFH) (n=71 675). In hospital bleeding and mortality were compared and adjusted using the CathPCI Registry logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations with UFH as the reference. Bivalirudin was used in 51.3% of patients versus 48.7% for UFH. The use of bivalirudin decreased over time, and in 2014, UFH became the most frequently used. Patients receiving UFH were more likely to have an acute coronary syndrome presentation (37.8% versus 27.4%) or have cardiogenic shock (3.74% versus 1.98%). The observed rates for in hospital bleeding (7.0% versus 9.5%; adjusted odds ratio,0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.87) and mortality (2.6% versus 4.2%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.97) were lower for patients receiving bivalirudin compared with those receiving UFH. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing PCI, bivalirudin and UFH were used with similar frequency although the patterns of use changed over the enrollment period. Patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing PCI had a lower adjusted risk of in hospital outcomes with bivalirudin; however, given the observational nature of this analysis, a randomized trial is warranted.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Screening Tests and Treatment for Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome Depression: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event have an increased risk for depression. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening instruments and to compare safety and effectiveness of depression treatments in adults within 3 months of an ACS event. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2003 to August 2017, and a manual search of citations from key primary and review articles. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of post-ACS patients that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of depression screening tools or compared the safety and effectiveness of a broad range of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic depression treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 investigators independently screened each article for inclusion; abstracted the data; and rated the quality, applicability, and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Evidence from 6 of the 10 included studies showed that a range of depression screening instruments produces acceptable levels of diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values (70% to 100%) but low positive predictive values (below 50%). The Beck Depression Inventory-II was the most studied tool. A large study found that a combination of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and antidepressant medication improved depression symptoms, mental health-related function, and overall life satisfaction more than usual care. LIMITATION: Few studies, no evaluation of the influence of screening on clinical outcomes, and no studies addressing several clinical interventions of interest. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments produce diagnostic accuracy metrics that are similar in post-ACS patients and other clinical populations. Depression interventions have an uncertain effect on cardiovascular outcomes, but CBT combined with antidepressant medication produces modest improvement in psychosocial outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (PROSPERO: CRD42016047032).

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Appropriate dosing of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

The development of nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) has been a major advance in therapy for patients requiring oral anticoagulation, particularly for long-term indications such as stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). The NOACs are generally easier to dose and manage due to less heterogeneity of effect across individuals and fewer drug and food interactions, compared with warfarin. However, the treatment effect of NOACs may vary based on important patient characteristics, particularly renal function. Therefore, the package inserts for these drugs have dosing recommendations for patients with impaired kidney function, which are frequently but not always based on evidence from large-scale, randomized, clinical trials. Furthermore, there is evidence that NOAC dosing inconsistent with the regulatory labeling may be associated with adverse clinical outcomes. This review discusses the evidence supporting the current NOAC dosing, current dosing practices, associated outcomes, and gaps in knowledge regarding use of NOACs in patients with AF.

Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in Patients Taking Nondihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Atrial Fibrillation (from the ROCKET AF Trial).

Non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (non-DHP CCBs) possess combined P-glycoprotein and moderate CYP3A4 inhibition, which may lead to increased exposure of medications that are substrates for these metabolic pathways, such as rivaroxaban. We evaluated the use and outcomes of non-DHP CCBs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) in Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF). We assessed clinical outcomes in patients who received non-DHP CCBs and the impact on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin. Stroke or noncentral nervous system (CNS) systemic embolism (SE), major or nonmajor clinically relevant (NMCR) bleeding, all-cause death, and major bleeding were compared according to non-DHP CCB use. At randomization, 1,308 patients (9.2%) were taking a non-DHP CCB. They were more likely to be women, have diabetes and COPD, and less likely to have heart failure and had a lower mean CHADS2 score (3.3 vs 3.5). Non-DHP CCB use was not associated with an increased risk of stroke/non-CNS SE (p = 0.11) or the composite outcome of NMCR or major bleeding (p = 0.087). Non-DHP CCB use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio 1.50, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.04) and intracranial hemorrhage (adjusted hazard ratio 2.84, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.29). No significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy (stroke or non-CNS SE; adjusted interaction p value = 0.38) or safety outcome (NMCR or major bleeding; adjusted interaction p value = 0.14) between rivaroxaban and warfarin with non-DHP CCB use. In conclusion, although the overall use of non-DHP CCBs was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, the use was not associated with a significant change in the safety or efficacy of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin observed in ROCKET AF.

Management of Patients on Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Acute Care and Periprocedural Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now widely used as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and management of venous thromboembolism. In clinical practice, there is still widespread uncertainty on how to manage patients on NOACs who bleed or who are at risk for bleeding. Clinical trial data related to NOAC reversal for bleeding and perioperative management are sparse, and recommendations are largely derived from expert opinion. Knowledge of time of last ingestion of the NOAC and renal function is critical to managing these patients given that laboratory measurement is challenging because of the lack of commercially available assays in the United States. Idarucizumab is available as an antidote to rapidly reverse the effects of dabigatran. At present, there is no specific antidote available in the United States for the oral factor Xa inhibitors. Prothrombin concentrate may be considered in life-threatening bleeding. Healthcare institutions should adopt a NOAC reversal and perioperative management protocol developed with multidisciplinary input.

Prevention of Critical Care Complications in the Coronary Intensive Care Unit: Protocols, Bundles, and Insights From Intensive Care Studies.

Over the past half century, coronary care units have expanded from specialized ischemia arrhythmia monitoring units into intensive care units (ICUs) for acutely ill and medically complex patients with a primary cardiac diagnosis. Patients admitted to contemporary coronary intensive care units (CICUs) are at risk for common and preventable critical care complications, yet many CICUs have not adopted standard-of-care prevention protocols and practices from general ICUs. In this article, we (1) review evidence-based interventions and care bundles that reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia, excess sedation during mechanical ventilation, central line infections, stress ulcers, malnutrition, delirium, and medication errors and (2) recommend pragmatic adaptations for common conditions in critically ill patients with cardiac disease, and (3) provide example order sets and practical CICU protocol implementation strategies.