Inactivated Four-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate Dosing Practices for Reversal of Warfarin-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Inactivated four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (I4F-PCC, Kcentra®) has become an important agent for the urgent or emergent reversal of bleeding associated with vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There is recognized inter-institutional variability with the use of I4F-PCC, especially as it relates to dosing practices. We sought to characterize variations in I4F-PCC dosing practices and their impact on patient outcomes and describe overall real-world clinical practice surrounding I4F-PCC utilization in the context of the management of warfarin-related intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective pragmatic registry study of adult patients admitted at a participating study site between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2015, who received I4F-PCC for reversal of warfarin-related ICH. Practices around warfarin-related ICH reversal in context of I4F-PCC utilization are described, including repeat I4F-PCC dosing, adjunctive reversal agents, and dose rounding policies (i.e., rounding doses to nearest vial size vs preparing exact/unrounded doses). All research was approved by local human investigation committees at each institution. RESULTS: Seventeen institutions contributed data on 528 patients to this registry. These institutions were primarily urban centers (74%), located in the southeast USA (47%), with Level 1 Trauma designation (79%), and with Comprehensive Stroke Center designation (74%). Most patients included in the study had sustained a non-traumatic ICH (68%), had a median admission GCS of 14 (IQR 7-15), and were receiving warfarin for atrial fibrillation (57.4%). There was substantial time latency between baseline INR and I4F-PCC (median 2.4 h, IQR 1.4-4.5 h). Most patients received adjunctive reversal agents, including vitamin K (89.5%) and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) (31.9%). A smaller proportion (6.0%) of patients received repeat I4F-PCC dosing. The median ICU length of stay (LOS) was 3 days (IQR 2-7 days), median hospital LOS was 6 days (IQR 3-12 days), and overall mortality rate was 28.8%. For institutions rounding doses to the nearest vial size, the first post-I4F-PCC dose INR was statistically but not clinically significantly lower than for institutions without vial size dose rounding, with comparable degrees of INR reduction from baseline. No differences were observed between dose rounding cohorts in adverse effects, ICU or hospital LOS, modified Rankin score at discharge, or mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients received single doses of I4F-PCC, with adjunctive reversal agents and rounding doses to vial size. The time difference from baseline INR to factor product administration is a potential opportunity for process improvement in the management of warfarin-related ICH.

South Asian-Specific MYBPC3 Δ25bp Deletion Carriers Display Hypercontraction and Impaired Diastolic Function Under Exercise Stress.

Background: A 25-base pair (25bp) intronic deletion in the MYBPC3 gene enriched in South Asians (SAs) is a risk allele for late-onset left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, hypertrophy, and heart failure (HF) with several forms of cardiomyopathy. However, the effect of this variant on exercise parameters has not been evaluated. Methods: As a pilot study, 10 asymptomatic SA carriers of the MYBPC3 Δ25bp variant (52.9 ± 2.14 years) and 10 age- and gender-matched non-carriers (NCs) (50.1 ± 2.7 years) were evaluated at baseline and under exercise stress conditions using bicycle exercise echocardiography and continuous cardiac monitoring. Results: Baseline echocardiography parameters were not different between the two groups. However, in response to exercise stress, the carriers of Δ25bp had significantly higher LV ejection fraction (%) (CI: 4.57 ± 1.93; p < 0.0001), LV outflow tract peak velocity (m/s) (CI: 0.19 ± 0.07; p < 0.0001), and higher aortic valve (AV) peak velocity (m/s) (CI: 0.103 ± 0.08; p = 0.01) in comparison to NCs, and E/A ratio, a marker of diastolic compliance, was significantly lower in Δ25bp carriers (CI: 0.107 ± 0.102; p = 0.038). Interestingly, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVIDdia) was augmented in NCs in response to stress, while it did not increase in Δ25bp carriers (CI: 0.239 ± 0.125; p = 0.0002). Further, stress-induced right ventricular systolic excursion velocity s' (m/s), as a marker of right ventricle function, increased similarly in both groups, but tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion increased more in carriers (slope: 0.008; p = 0.0001), suggesting right ventricle functional differences between the two groups. Conclusions: These data support that MYBPC3 Δ25bp is associated with LV hypercontraction under stress conditions with evidence of diastolic impairment.

Drug treatment of acute ischemic stroke.

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is the fourth leading cause of death and the leading cause of adult disability in the USA. AIS most commonly occurs when a blood vessel is obstructed leading to irreversible brain injury and subsequent focal neurologic deficits. Drug treatment of AIS involves intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase (recombinant tissue plasminogen activator [rtPA]). Intravenous alteplase promotes thrombolysis by hydrolyzing plasminogen to form the proteolytic enzyme plasmin. Plasmin targets the blood clot with limited systemic thrombolytic effects. Alteplase must be administered within a short time window to appropriate patients to optimize its therapeutic efficacy. Recent trials have shown this time window may be extended from 3 to 4.5 hours in select patients. Other acute supportive interventions for AIS include maintaining normoglycemia, euthermia and treating severe hypertension. Urgent anticoagulation for AIS has generally not shown benefits that exceed the hemorrhage risks in the acute setting. Urgent antiplatelet use for AIS has limited benefits and should only promptly be initiated if alteplase was not administered, or after 24 hours if alteplase was administered. The majority of AIS patients do not receive thrombolytic therapy due to late arrival to emergency departments and currently there is a paucity of acute interventions for them. Ongoing clinical trials may lead to further medical breakthroughs to limit the damage inflicted by this devastating disease.

Prospective, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of intravenous levetiracetam versus phenytoin for seizure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epileptic drugs are commonly used for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury. We performed a study comparing intravenous (IV) levetiracetam (LEV) to IV phenytoin (PHT) for seizure prophylaxis after neurological injury. METHODS: In this prospective, single-center, randomized, single-blinded comparative trial of LEV versus PHT (2:1 ratio) in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) or subarachnoid hemorrhage (NCT00618436) patients received IV load with either LEV or fosphenytoin followed by standard IV doses of LEV or PHT. Doses were adjusted to maintain therapeutic serum PHT concentrations or if patients had seizures. Continuous EEG (cEEG) monitoring was performed for the initial 72 h; outcome data were collected. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were randomized (LEV = 34; PHT = 18); 89% with sTBI. When controlling for baseline severity, LEV patients experienced better long-term outcomes than those on PHT; the Disability Rating Scale score was lower at 3 months (P = 0.042) and the Glasgow Outcomes Scale score was higher at 6 months (P = 0.039). There were no differences between groups in seizure occurrence during cEEG (LEV 5/34 vs. PHT 3/18; P = 1.0) or at 6 months (LEV 1/20 vs. PHT 0/14; P = 1.0), mortality (LEV 14/34 vs. PHT 4/18; P = 0.227). There were no differences in side effects between groups (all P > 0.15) except for a lower frequency of worsened neurological status (P = 0.024), and gastrointestinal problems (P = 0.043) in LEV-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study of LEV versus PHT for seizure prevention in the NSICU showed improved long-term outcomes of LEV-treated patients vis-à-vis PHT-treated patients. LEV appears to be an alternative to PHT for seizure prophylaxis in this setting.