Management of Factor Xa inhibitor-associated life-threatening major hemorrhage: A retrospective multi-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: Factor Xa (FXa) inhibitors, used for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism treatment and prevention, are the dominant non-Vitamin K oral anticoagulants on the market. While major bleeding may be less common with these agents compared to warfarin, it is always a risk, and little has been published on the most serious bleeding scenarios. This study describes a cohort of patients with FXa inhibitor-associated life-threatening bleeding events, their clinical characteristics, interventions and outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, 5-center review of FXa inhibitor-treated major bleeding patients. Investigators identified potential cases by cross-referencing ICD-9/10 codes for hemorrhage with medication lists. Investigators selected cases they deemed to require immediate reversal of coagulopathy, and reviewed charts for characteristics, reversal strategies and other interventions, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 56 charts met the inclusion criteria for the retrospective cohort, including 29 (52%) gastrointestinal bleeds (GIB), 19 (34%) intracranial hemorrhages (ICH) and 8 (14%) others. Twenty-four (43%) patients received various factor or plasma products, and the remainder received supportive care. Thirty-day mortality was 21% (n=12). Re-anticoagulation within 30-days occurred in 23 (41%) patients. Thromboembolic events (TEEs) occurred in 6 (11%) patients. No differences were observed in outcomes by treatment strategy. CONCLUSIONS: This cohort of FXa inhibitor-associated major bleeding scenarios deemed appropriate for acute anticoagulant reversal illustrates the variable approaches in the absence of a specific reversal agent.

Minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination and Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Scores Often Do Not Align.

Background Many residency programs do not accept the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX-USA) alone for osteopathic applicants. Furthermore, among those programs that do accept the COMLEX-USA, it is unknown how programs scale their minimum COMLEX-USA scores compared to their minimum United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores. Objective Our objective was to examine the variation of relative within-program differences between minimum USMLE Step and COMLEX-USA Level scores required for consideration by United States residency programs. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) database from April 2023, including the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022. These specialties were internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, emergency medicine, psychiatry, surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery, and neurology. Within-program differences were calculated by subtracting the minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores from the converted minimum USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores calculated from the minimum COMLEX-USA Level 1 and 2 scores using two conversion tools. We present differences as medians with interquartile ranges (IQR). Additionally, we report the proportion of programs with greater than 10-point differences for each step (1 and 2). Results Of the 3,364 accredited programs from the examined specialties, we included 1,477 in the Step 1 analysis and 1,227 in the Step 2 analysis with complete data. The median within-program difference between the minimum Step 1 score and the predicted Step 1 score was 12.0 (IQR 2.0, 17.0) using the Barnum and colleagues' conversion tool and -1.7 (IQR -6.2, 6.3) using the Smith and colleagues' tool. The median differences for Step 2 were 2.0 (IQR -8.0, 12.0) and -6.5 (IQR -13.9, -1.5) for each tool, respectively. Using the Barnum and Smith conversion tools, 937 (63%) and 435 (29%) programs had a greater than 10-point Step 1 score difference, respectively. Similarly, for Step 2, 564 (46%) and 515 (42%) programs had a greater than 10-point difference with each conversion tool. Conclusion There is wide variation in the within-program differences between minimum USMLE and predicted minimum USMLE (from COMLEX-USA) scores. Many programs have greater than 10-point differences, which may be a source of bias in osteopathic applicant selection.