Performance of risk scores in predicting major bleeding in left ventricular assist device recipients: a comparative external validation.

Background: Implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is a crucial therapeutic option for selected end-stage heart failure patients. However, major bleeding (MB) complications postimplantation are a significant concern. Objectives: We evaluated current risk scores' predictive accuracy for MB in LVAD recipients. Methods: We conducted an observational, single-center study of LVAD recipients (HeartWare or HeartMate-3, November 2010-December 2022) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the first post-LVAD MB (according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis [ISTH] and Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support [INTERMACS], and INTERMACS combined with intracranial bleeding [INTERMACS+] criteria). Mortality prior to MB was considered a competing event. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration were evaluated for the Hypertension, Abnormal Renal/Liver Function, Stroke, Bleeding History or Predisposition, Labile INR, Elderly, Drugs/Alcohol Concomitantly score, Hepatic or Renal Disease, Ethanol Abuse, Malignancy, Older Age, Reduced Platelet Count or Function, Re-Bleeding, Hypertension, Anemia, Genetic Factors, Excessive Fall Risk and Stroke score, Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation score, Outpatient Bleeding Risk Index, venous thromboembolism score, atrial fibrillation score, and Utah Bleeding Risk Score (UBRS). Results: One hundred four patients were included (median age, 64 years; female, 20.2%; HeartWare, 90.4%; HeartMate-3, 9.6%). The cumulative MB incidence was 75.7% (95% CI 65.5%-85.9%) by ISTH and INTERMACS+ criteria and 67.0% (95% CI 56.0%-78.0%) per INTERMACS criteria over a median event-free follow-up time of 1916 days (range, 59-4521). All scores had poor discriminative ability on their intended prediction timeframe. Cumulative area under the receiving operator characteristic curve ranged from 0.49 (95% CI 0.35-0.63, venous thromboembolism-BLEED) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.65, UBRS) according to ISTH and INTERMACS+ criteria and from 0.48 (95% CI 0.40-0.56, Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) to 0.56 (95% CI 0.47-0.65, UBRS) per INTERMACS criteria. All models showed poor calibration, largely underestimating MB risk. Conclusion: Current bleeding risk scores exhibit inadequate predictive accuracy for LVAD recipients. There is a need for an accurate risk score to identify LVAD patients at high risk of MB who may benefit from patient-tailored antithrombotic therapy.

Idarucizumab for dabigatran reversal: A systematic review and meta-analysis of indications and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Idarucizumab has been approved to reverse the anticoagulant effect of dabigatran. However, there is little knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of idarucizumab in daily practice. AIMS: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the use, effectiveness and outcomes of idarucizumab. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed up to September 8th 2022. Original studies including patients prescribed idarucizumab, evaluating prescription indications, prescription appropriateness, haemostatic efficacy and/or the occurrence of adverse events were eligible. Case-reports and studies performed in patients ≤18 years or in healthy volunteers were excluded. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, after Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformation. RESULTS: Thirty studies comprising 3602 patients were included. Idarucizumab was prescribed for bleeding (63.1 %, 95%CI 57.0 %-69.0 %), invasive procedures (30.5 %, 95%CI: 24.1 %-37.2 %), to enable thrombolysis (range: 2.0 %-27.3 %), dabigatran intoxication without bleeding (range: 3.6 %-7.0 %) or unspecified reasons (range: 0.4 %-18.8 %). Overall, 2.8 % (95%CI 0.5 %-6.2 %) of prescription indications were reported to be inappropriate upon post-hoc evaluation. Hemostatic effectiveness was achieved in 77.7 % (95%CI 66.7 %-87.2 %) and peri-procedural haemostasis was normal in 98.5 % (95%CI 86.6 %-100 %) of patients. The pooled incidences of all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events at any follow-up duration were 13.6 % (95%CI 9.6 %-17.9 %) and 2.0 % (95%CI 0.8 %-3.4 %), respectively. CONCLUSION: Idarucizumab was mainly prescribed in the setting of bleeding. The reported hemostatic effectiveness was good, especially perioperatively, and the incidence of thromboembolic events was low. Patients with dabigatran-associated bleeding or requiring an urgent procedure nonetheless face a high mortality risk.

Inappropriate prescriptions of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in hospitalized patients: A narrative review.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have become the cornerstone for prevention of thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and patients with a history of venous thromboembolism. However, studies show that DOAC prescriptions are commonly inconsistent with guideline recommendations. DOAC dosing in the acutely ill patient could impose an even greater challenge. In this review, we describe the prevalence of inappropriate inpatient prescribing of DOACs and the associated rationales, predictors and clinical consequences. With the aim of promoting appropriate prescriptions of DOACs to hospitalized patients, we further outline DOAC dose reduction criteria justified by various guidelines, illustrating the complexities of appropriate dosing, especially in acutely ill patients. Moreover, we will discuss the impact of anticoagulant stewardship programs and the vital role that pharmacists may play in optimizing inpatient DOAC treatment.