RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have overtaken warfarin in the treatment of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Limited data explore the safety of DOACs in obesity. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study between June 2015 and September 2019 uses the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) registry to compare DOACs and warfarin across weight classes (not obese: body mass index (BMI) ⩾ 18.5 and < 30; obese: BMI ⩾ 30 and < 40; severely obese: BMI ⩾ 40). Primary outcomes include major, clinically relevant nonmajor (CRNM), and minor bleeding events per 100 patient-years. Secondary outcomes include stroke, recurrent VTE, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: DOACs were prescribed to 49% of the 4089 patients with AF and 46% of the 3162 patients with VTE. Compared to patients treated with warfarin, those treated with DOACs had a higher estimated glomerular filtration rate across BMI categories regardless of indication. In the AF population, severely obese patients treated with DOACs had more major (3.4 vs 1.8, p = 0.004), CRNM (8.6 vs 5.9, p = 0.019), and minor bleeding (11.4 vs 9.9, p = 0.001). There was no difference in stroke or all-cause mortality. In the VTE population, both CRNM (7.5 vs 6.7, p = 0.042) and minor bleeding (19.3 vs 10.5, p < 0.001) events occurred at higher rates in patients treated with DOACs. There was no difference in recurrent pulmonary embolism, stroke, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: There is a higher rate of bleeding in severely obese patients with VTE and AF treated with DOACs compared to warfarin, without a difference in secondary outcomes. Further studies to compare the anticoagulant classes and understand bleeding drivers in this population are needed.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pulmonary Embolism Response Teams (PERT) were employed at multiple institutions to bridge the gap between varied treatment options for acute PE and unclear evidence for optimal management. There is limited data regarding the impact of PERT on the use of advanced therapies and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective single-center cohort study comparing patients that presented to the ED with an acute PE before and after the creation of PERT in June 2017 at our institution. We assessed utilization of advanced therapies, LOS, and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 817 patients (168 pre-PERT, 649 post-PERT) were evaluated in the ED with an acute PE between October 2016 and December 2019. Both groups were similar in demographics, comorbidities, and PESI score. There was a decrease in advanced therapy use (16 % vs. 7.5 %, p = 0.006) after PERT creation. Most notable decreases were in catheter-based therapies (8.5 % vs. 2.2 %, p = 0.008) and IVC filter placement (5.3 % vs. 3.2 %, p < 0.001). Median ICU LOS (2.5 days vs. 2.3 days, p = 0.55) and hospital LOS (3.1 vs. 3.0, p = 0.92) did not vary pre-PERT vs. post-PERT. In-hospital mortality (8.5 % vs. 5.0 %, p = 0.29) and 30-day all-cause mortality (1.2 % vs. 0.5 %, p = 0.28) were not different between the two groups as well. CONCLUSION: At our institution, PERT was associated with a decrease in advanced therapies administered to acute PE patients without affecting mortality or LOS. Additional studies to assess impact of this multi-disciplinary care team model on interventional therapies and clinical outcomes for PE at a broader level are necessary.