Incidence of thrombotic complications related to weight-based dosing of activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC) for reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban in obese patients.

Factor eight inhibitor bypassing activity (aPCC) is recommended as a non-specific reversal agent for direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) according to the 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines for reversal of anticoagulation. Factor eight inhibitor bypassing activity carries a black box warning for thrombotic events such as stroke, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction, particularly at high doses. This was a retrospective, single-center, cohort investigation that included patients who received a weight-based dose of aPCC for reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Patients were grouped by BMI as obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) or non-obese (BMI < 30 kg/m2) for analysis. The primary outcome of this investigation was the occurrence of thrombotic complications [venous thromboembolism (VTE), myocardial infarction, stroke] documented in the medical record at any point during hospitalization after administration of aPCC. Secondary outcomes included bleeding complications, in-hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay. Patients in the obese group were younger [76.4 years (SD +/- 11.3 years) vs. 69.6 years (SD +/- 12.4 years); p < 0.0001] and a higher proportion had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus prior to admission [37 (19.2%) vs. 35 (36.8%); p = 0.0011]. There was no difference in the primary outcome of thrombotic events between non-obese and obese patients [12 (6.2%) vs. 5 (5.3%); p = 0.75], or for any of the secondary outcomes of bleeding, in-hospital mortality or length of stay. This investigation did not reveal a difference in rates of thrombosis or bleeding events between obese and non-obese patients who received aPCC for reversal of apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population.