Dabigatran accumulation in acute kidney injury: is more better than less to prevent bleeding? A case report.

Dabigatran is an oral anticoagulant that is mainly renally excreted. Despite its efficacy in preventing thromboembolic events, concerns arise regarding bleeding complications in patients with acute kidney injury. Idarucizumab is its specific antidote and reverses quickly and effectively dabigatran anticoagulation effects in situations of severe bleeding or pending surgical procedures, but its benefit beyond these two indications remains uncertain. We present a case of a woman with atrial fibrillation anticoagulated by dabigatran and admitted with Streptococcus agalactiae meningitis, acute kidney injury and dabigatran accumulation. Idarucizumab was not administered initially as she did not meet its current strict indications. However, subsequently, significant bleeding necessitated its use. A rebound increase in dabigatran concentration was associated with an intracranial hemorrhage, but the combination of additional doses of idarucizumab with hemodialysis lowered the dabigatran concentration and prevented significant rebound increases. Further investigation into the optimal management of dabigatran accumulation and acute kidney injury-associated bleeding is needed to enhance patient outcomes and safety. Early initiation of hemodialysis together with idarucizumab administration may be crucial in preventing life-threatening bleeding events in these patients.

Propofol sedation in routine endoscopy: A case series comparing target controlled infusion vs manually controlled bolus concept.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have addressed safety and effectiveness of non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation (NAPS) for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy Target controlled infusion (TCI) is claimed to provide an optimal sedation regimen by avoiding under- or oversedation. AIM: To assess safety and performance of propofol TCI sedation in comparison with nurse-administered bolus-sedation. METHODS: Fouty-five patients undergoing endoscopy under TCI propofol sedation were prospectively included from November 2016 to May 2017 and compared to 87 patients retrospectively included that underwent endoscopy with NAPS. Patients were matched for age and endoscopic procedure. We recorded time of sedation and endoscopy, dosage of medication and adverse events. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in dose per time of propofol administered in the TCI group, compared to the NAPS group (8.2 ± 2.7 mg/min vs 9.3 ± 3.4 mg/min; P = 0.046). The time needed to provide adequate sedation levels was slightly but significantly lower in the control group (5.3 ± 2.7 min vs 7.7 ± 3.3 min; P < 0.001), nonetheless the total endoscopy time was similar in both groups. No differences between TCI and bolus-sedation was observed for mean total-dosage of propofol rate as well as adverse events. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that sedation using TCI for GI endoscopy reduces the dose of propofol necessary per minute of endoscopy. This may translate into less adverse events. However, further and randomized trials need to confirm this trend.