Treatment of adults with intracranial hemorrhage on apixaban or rivaroxaban with prothrombin complex concentrate products.

To analyze the efficacy and safety of activated prothrombin complex concentrates (aPCC) and four-factor prothrombin complex concentrates (4F-PCC) to prevent hematoma expansion in patients taking apixaban or rivaroxaban with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). In this multicenter, retrospective study, sixty-seven ICH patients who received aPCC or 4F-PCC for known use of apixaban or rivaroxaban between February 2014 and September 2018 were included. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who achieved excellent/good or poor hemostasis after administration of aPCC or 4F-PCC. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, thromboembolic events during admission, and transfusion requirements. Excellent/good hemostasis was achieved in 87% of aPCC patients, 89% of low-dose 4F-PCC [< 30 units per kilogram (kg)], and 89% of high-dose 4F-PCC (≥ 30 units per kg). There were no significant differences in excellent/good or poor hemostatic efficacy (p = 0.362). No differences were identified in transfusions 6 h prior (p = 0.087) or 12 h after (p = 0.178) the reversal agent. Mortality occurred in five patients, with no differences among the groups (p = 0.838). There were no inpatient thromboembolic events. Both aPCC and 4F-PCC appear safe and equally associated with hematoma stability in patients taking apixaban or rivaroxaban who present with ICH. Prospective studies are needed to identify a superior reversal agent when comparing andexanet alfa to hospital standard of care (4F-PCC or aPCC) and to further explore the optimal dosing strategy for patients with ICH associated with apixaban or rivaroxaban use.

A focused investigation of expedited, stack of three shocks versus chest compressions first followed by single shocks for monitored ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia cardiopulmonary arrest in an in-hospital setting.

BACKGROUND: In cases of in-hospital-witnessed ventricular fibrillation/ventricular tachycardia (VF/VT) arrest, it is unclear whether cardiopulmonary resuscitation prior to defibrillation attempt or expedited stacked defibrillation attempt is superior. METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of all admitted patients with continuous cardiac monitoring who suffered VF/VT arrest between July 2005 and June 2013. In the stacked shock period (2005-2008), institutional protocols advocated early defibrillation with administration of 3 stacked shocks with brief pauses between each single defibrillation attempt to confirm sustained VF/VT. During the initial chest compression period (2008-2011), the protocol was modified to perform a 2-minute period of chest compressions prior to each defibrillation, including the initial. In the modified stack shock period (2011-2013), for a monitored arrest, defibrillation attempts were expedited with up to 3 successive shocks administered for persistent VF/VT. In unmonitored arrest, chest compressions and ventilations were initiated prior to defibrillation. The primary outcome measure was survival to hospital discharge. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-one cardiopulmonary arrests were recorded during the study period, with 106 patients (16%) representing primary VF/VT. The incidence of VF/VT arrest did not vary significantly between the study periods (P= 0.16) Survival to hospital discharge for all primary VF/VT arrest victims decreased, then increased significantly from the stacked shock period to initial chest compression period to modified stacked shock period (58%, 18%, 71%, respectively, P < 0.01). Specific group differences were significant between the initial chest compression versus the stacked and modified stacked shock groups (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Data suggest that monitored VF/VT should undergo expeditious defibrillation with use of stacked shocks.