Gastrointestinal bleeding during anticoagulation with direct oral anticoagulants compared to vitamin K antagonists.

Aim: Patients receiving oral anticoagulants with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). We compared cases of GIB associated with VKAs and DOACs in terms of risk factors, scores, timing, location, severity, and outcome. Methods: Data from patients treated at a university hospital in Switzerland for GIB under VKA and DOACs between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed in this investigator-driven, retrospective, single-center study. Results: A total of 248 patients (110 males; median age, 80 years; 134 VKA, 114 DOAC) were included. No significant differences in age, weight or sex were observed. The propensity of the VKA group for risk factors such as comorbidities, interacting medications, or a high risk for bleeding (HAS-BLED score) was higher than that of the DOAC group. 56% of the VKA-treated patients had a supratherapeutic INR, and 25% in the DOAC group received an unlicensed dose. Significantly more patients in the DOAC group were not formally overdosed with OAC whilst receiving amiodarone compared to the VKA group (57% vs. 18%, respectively, p = 0.03). Latency between the documented start of oral anticoagulation and GIB was shorter in the DOAC group (median 3 months) than in the VKA group (median 23.5 months, p¡0.001). There were no differences in terms of location and severity of the GIB, length of hospitalization, or mortality. Conclusion: Patients taking VKAs displayed more risk factors for GIB than those taking DOACs. Treatment with DOACs was associated with early GIB and calls for increased vigilance during the first months after commencement. Co-medication with amiodarone appeared to be a risk factor for GIB in patients taking DOACs.

Myocarditis and pericarditis in association with COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination: cases from a regional pharmacovigilance centre.

In this article we summarize suspected adverse events following immunization (AEFI) of pericarditis, myocarditis and perimyocarditis that were reported by our regional pharmacovigilance centre after COVID-19 mRNA-vaccination and discuss their association with these vaccines. Seventeen cases were reported between March and July 2021. Of these, nine had perimyocarditis, five myocarditis and three pericarditis. Twelve patients were male (71%). The median age was 38 years (range 17-88). The most commonly observed presenting symptom was acute chest pain (65%). While 47% of the patients were previously healthy, 53% had at least one pre-existing comorbidity, with hypertension being the most prevalent (24%). The European Society of Cardiology diagnostic criteria for the reported AEFIs were fulfilled in twelve cases (71%). The AEFIs occurred after the first vaccine dose in six cases (35%), after the second vaccine dose in ten cases (59%) and after both doses in one case (6%). The median latency of all AEFIs taken together was 14 days (range 1-28) after the first vaccination and 3 days (range 1-17) after the second one. All patients except one were hospitalized (94%) with a median length of stay of 7.5 days (range 3-13). The majority of patients (n = 11, 65%) did not experience any complications, and 13 (77%) of the patients had recovered or were recovering at the time of discharge. In 16 of the 17 cases (94%), the association between the AEFI and mRNA-vaccination was considered possible by the pharmacovigilance centre.

How should we measure blood pressure? Implications of the fourth blood pressure measurement in office blood pressure.

According to the European Hypertension Guidelines regarding office blood pressure measurements (OBPMs), the mean between second/third or third/fourth OBPM should be taken if the first two readings differ by ≤10 or >10 mmHg, respectively. Our aim was to explore the value of the fourth OBPM and determine whether a simplified OBPM procedure is feasible without loss of quality. In this cross-sectional study, four standard OBPMs were taken. The mean of the second/third OBPM (S2S3/D2D3) and third/fourth OBPM (S3S4/D3D4) for systolic/diastolic values was calculated. Correlation, agreement, and differences regarding BP classification were explored for the entire cohort and subsets with a difference between the first/second OBPM (S1S2/D1D2) ≤10 and >10 mmHg. Overall (n = 802) and for the subsets with an S1S2 (n = 596) and D1D2 (n = 742) difference ≤10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 was in median 0.5 mmHg lower than S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p < .0005 for all). In participants with an S1S2 (n = 206) and D1D2 (n = 60) difference >10 mmHg, S3S4/D3D4 differed numerically from S2S3/D2D3, respectively (p > .1 for all). Overall and for all subsets with an S1S2/D1D2 difference ≤10/>10 mmHg, less subjects were numerically classified as hypertensive with S3S4/D3D4 than with S2S3/D2D3 (p > .04), but BP reclassification occurred in both directions in 1.0%-10.0%, depending on the cohort. In conclusion, the third/fourth OBPM results in lower BP values than the second/third measurement, regardless of the difference between first/second OBPM, whereby BP reclassifications occurred in both directions. Therefore, the cutoff of >10 versus ≤10mmHg difference between first/second OBPM to implement a fourth BPM harbors the risk of distorted results. We therefore recommend using the second/third BPM for standardized OBPM. Trial registration: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02552030).

iPhone App compared with standard blood pressure measurement -The iPARR trial.

BACKGROUND: The possibility to use built-in smartphone-cameras for photoplethysmographic (PPG) recording of pulse waves lead to the release of numerous health apps, claiming to measure blood pressure (BP) based on PPG signals. Even though these apps are highly popular, not a single one is clinically validated. Aim of the current study was to test systolic BP (sBP) estimation by a promising new algorithm in a large clinical setting. METHODS: The study was designed based on the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010. Each individual received 7 sequential BP measurements, starting with the reference device - an automated oscillometric cuff device - followed by the PPG recording at the patients' index finger. RESULTS: A total 1,036 subjects were recruited of which 965 could be included for final analysis leading to 2,895 pairs of comparison. Mean (±SD) error between test and reference device was -0.41 (±16.52) mmHg. Only 38.1% of all 2,895 BP comparisons reached a delta within ±5 mmHg, while 29.3% reached a delta larger than 15 mmHg. Bland-Altman plot showed an overestimation of smartphone sBP in comparison to reference sBP in low range and an underestimation in high sBP range. CONCLUSIONS: According to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010 specifications the algorithm failed validation criteria for sBP measurement and was not commercialized. These findings emphasize that health apps should be rigorously validated according to common guidelines before market release as under- and/or overestimation of BP is potentially exposing persons at health risks in short and long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02552030.

Impact of single-visit American versus European office blood pressure measurement procedure on individual blood pressure classification: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Recently, ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines defined different office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) procedures and ranges. We aimed to describe the effect of the different methods to calculate OBPM on BP classification. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four standardised OBPM were performed in 802 patients within a single visit. BP values were calculated (EUR-/US-BPM) and categorised (EUR-/US-Ranges) according to ACC/AHA and ESC/ESH guidelines. Comparing the BPM procedures, the mean absolute difference of systolic and diastolic BP was 4 (SD ± 5) and 3 (SD ± 3) and a difference ≥ 5 mmHg was found in 35% and 16%, respectively. There was an increase of grade 1/2 arterial hypertension of 87% and 120% comparing BP values categorised according to US-Ranges with EUR-Ranges after applying EUR- or US-BPM to all (p < 0.0001), of 25% and 6% comparing BP values calculated according to US-BPM with EUR-BPM applying EUR- or US-Ranges to all (p = 0.006 and p = 0.17), and of 134% comparing US-Ranges/US-BPM with EUR-Ranges/EUR-BPM (p < 0.0001), respectively. Overall, 16% were reclassified to higher categories when applying US-BPM, and 42-45% of patients classified as "high normal" applying EUR-BPM procedures were reclassified when applying US-BPM procedure, 76-77% of them to "hypertensive" categories. CONCLUSION: Besides the effect of the redefinition of BP categories by ACC/AHA, the calculation method of US-BPM compared to EUR-BPM leads to a further relevant increase of patients classified as "hypertensive". In addition to the definition of uniform outcome-oriented target BP values, there is an urgent need for a universal definition of an OBPM procedure as prerequisite for proper BP classification and patient management.

Impact of Single-Occasion American vs. Canadian Office Blood Pressure Measurement Recommendations on Blood Pressure Classification.

BACKGROUND: The 2017 American hypertension guidelines [American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA)] define a blood pressure measurement (BPM) procedure that differs from the Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) guidelines. We studied the impact of the BPM procedure on arterial hypertension (AHT) prevalence rate. METHODS: In 805 subjects, the mean of the first and second BPM (adapted ACC/AHA procedure) was compared with the mean of the second and third BPM (CHEP procedure). All BPMs were taken at a single occasion. According to ACC/AHA definition, office blood pressure (OBP) of <120/80 mm Hg was classified as normal, 120-129/<80 mm Hg as elevated, and ≥130/80 mm Hg as hypertensive. RESULTS: Using the adapted ACC/AHA BPM procedure compared to the CHEP BPM procedure led to an increase in the AHT prevalence rate (≥130/80 mm Hg) of 4% (58% vs. 54%). Overall, 8.9% (72/805) of subjects were reclassified to a higher and 2.6% (21/805) to a lower blood pressure category when using the adapted ACC/AHA BPM procedure instead of the CHEP BPM procedure. In the group with elevated OBP (120-129/<80 mm Hg), 41.9% (36/86) of subjects were reclassified. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal changes of BPM procedures lead to relevant changes of hypertension prevalence. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: Trial Number NCT02552030.

Reliability of single office blood pressure measurements.

OBJECTIVES: Standard operating procedures for office blood pressure measurement (OBPM) vary greatly between guidelines and studies. We aimed to compare the difference between a single OBPM and the mean of the three following measurements. Further, we studied how many patients with possible hypertension may be missed due to short-term masked hypertension (STMH) and how many might be overdiagnosed due to short-term white coat hypertension (STWCH). DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional, single-centre trial, 1000 adult subjects were enrolled. After 5 min of rest, four sequential standard OBPMs were performed at 2 min intervals in a quiet room in sitting position. We compared the first (fBPM) to the mean of the second to fourth measurement (mBPM). STMH was defined as fBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic and mBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg. STWCH was defined as fBPM systolic ≥140 mm Hg or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg and mBPM <140 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic. RESULTS: Complete measurements were available in 802 subjects. Between fBPM and mBPM, 662 (82.5%), 441 (55%) and 208 (25.9%) subjects showed a difference in systolic and 531 (66.2%), 247 (30.8%) and 51 (6.4%) in diastolic blood pressure (BP) values of >2 mm Hg, >5 mm Hg and >10 mm Hg, respectively. In 3.4% of initially normotensives STMH and in 34.3% of initially hypertensives, STWCH was apparent. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant differences between a single OBPM and the mean of consecutive BP measurements. Our study provides evidence that a single OBPM should not be the preferred method and should be discouraged in future guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02552030;Results.

Patients presenting to the emergency department with non-specific complaints: the Basel Non-specific Complaints (BANC) study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient management in emergency departments (EDs) is often based on management protocols developed for specific complaints like dyspnea, chest pain, or syncope. To the best of our knowledge, to date no protocols exist for patients with nonspecific complaints (NSCs) such as "weakness,""dizziness," or "feeling unwell." The objectives of this study were to provide a framework for research and a description of patients with NSCs presenting to EDs. METHODS: Nonspecific complaints were defined as the entity of complaints not part of the set of specific complaints for which evidence-based management protocols for emergency physicians (EPs) exist. "Serious conditions" were defined as potentially life-threatening or those requiring early intervention to prevent health status deterioration. During a 6-month period, all adult nontrauma patients with an Emergency Severity Index (ESI) of 2 or 3 were prospectively enrolled, and serious conditions were identified within a 30-day period. RESULTS: The authors screened 18,261 patients for inclusion. A total of 218 of 1,611 (13.5%) nontrauma ESI 2 and 3 patients presented with NSCs. Median age was 82 years (interquartile range [IQR]=72 to 87), and 24 of 218 (11%) were nursing home inhabitants. A median of 4 (IQR=3 to 5) comorbidities were recorded, most often chronic hypertension, coronary artery disease, and dementia. During the 30-day follow-up period a serious condition was diagnosed in 128 of 218 patients (59%). The 30-day mortality rate was 6%. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with NSC presenting to the ED are at high risk of suffering from serious conditions. Sensitive risk stratification tools are needed to identify patients with potentially adverse health outcomes.

Serum procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell levels following hypothermia after cardiac arrest: a retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate time course of procalcitonin (PCT), C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) levels in patients with therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed laboratory and clinical data in a consecutive cohort of patients admitted to the medical intensive-care-unit of the University Hospital in Basel, Switzerland, in whom therapeutic hypothermia was induced because of cardiac arrest between December 2007 and January 2009. Infection was considered based on microbiological evidence (restricted definition) and/or clinical evidence of infection with prescription of antibiotics (extended definition). RESULTS: From 34 included patients, 25 had respiratory tract infection based on the clinical judgment and in 18 microbiological cultures turned positive (restricted definition). PCT concentrations were highest on the first day after hypothermia and showed a steady decrease until day 7 without differences in patients with and without presumed infection. CRP concentrations increased to a peak level at days 3-4 followed by a steady decrease; CRP concentrations were higher in patients with clinical diagnosis of infection on day 4 (P = 0.02); and in patients with evidence of bacterial growth in cultures on days 4 and 5 (P = 0.01 and P = 0.006). WBC remained unchanged after hypothermia without differences between patients with and without infection. CONCLUSION: High initial values of PCT and high peak levels after 3-4 days of CRP were found in patients with induction of hypothermia after cardiac arrest. This increase was unspecific and mirrors rather an inflammatory reaction than true underlying infection, limiting the diagnostic potential for early antibiotic stewardship in these patients.