Comparative safety of tenecteplase vs alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Tenecteplase has been compared to alteplase in acute stroke randomized trials, with similar outcomes and safety measures, but higher doses of tenecteplase have been associated with higher hemorrhage rates in some studies. Limited data are available on the safety of tenecteplase outside of clinical trials. METHODS: We examined the safety measures of intracranial hemorrhage, angioedema, and serious extracranial adverse events in a 21-hospital integrated healthcare system that switched from alteplase (0.9 mg/kg, maximum dose 90 mg) to tenecteplase (0.25 mg/kg, maximum dose 25 mg) for acute ischemic stroke. RESULTS: Among 3,689 subjects, no significant differences were seen between tenecteplase and alteplase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), parenchymal hemorrhage, or volume of parenchymal hemorrhage. Symptomatic hemorrhage (sICH) was not different between the two agents: sICH by NINDS criteria was 2.0 % for alteplase vs 2.3 % for tenecteplase (P = 0.57), and sICH by SITS criteria was 0.8 % vs 1.1 % (P = 0.39). Adjusted logistic regression models also showed no differences between tenecteplase and alteplase: the odds ratio for tenecteplase (vs alteplase) modeling sICH by NINDS criteria was 0.9 (95 % CI 0.33 - 2.46, P = 0.83) and the odds ratio for tenecteplase modeling sICH by SITS criteria was 1.12 (95 % CI 0.25 - 5.07, P = 0.89). Rates of angioedema and serious extracranial adverse events were low and did not differ between tenecteplase and alteplase. Elapsed door-to-needle times showed a small improvement after the switch to tenecteplase (51.8 % treated in under 30 min with tenecteplase vs 43.5 % with alteplase, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In use outside of clinical trials, complication rates are similar between tenecteplase and alteplase. In the context of a stroke telemedicine program, the rates of hemorrhage observed with either agent were lower than expected based on prior trials and registry data. The more easily prepared tenecteplase was associated with a lower door-to-needle time.

Efficacy and Safety of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prevention in Older Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Although older patients with atrial fibrillation are at heightened risk of thromboembolic and bleeding events, their optimal treatment choice remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials that compared thromboembolic or bleeding outcomes between a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) and a vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and reported outcomes for patients aged ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation. The efficacy outcome was the composite of stroke and systemic embolism. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, any clinically relevant bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Each DOAC and VKA was compared pairwise in a network meta-analysis. High- and low-dose regimens and factor IIa and Xa inhibitors were also compared. Seven randomized controlled trials were included in the analysis. Stroke and systemic embolism risks did not differ significantly among DOACs. There were no significant differences in major bleeding between each DOAC and VKA. Intracranial hemorrhage risk was significantly lower with dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban than with VKA and rivaroxaban, which had similar risks. High-dose regimens led to lower risks of stroke or systemic embolism compared with VKA and low-dose regimens, with both doses having similar bleeding risks. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged ≥75 years with atrial fibrillation, DOACs were associated with fewer thromboembolic events compared with VKA, whereas dabigatran, apixaban, and edoxaban were associated with lower risks of intracranial hemorrhage compared with VKA and rivaroxaban. REGISTRATION: URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/. Unique identifier: CRD42022329557.

Impact of Achieving Blood Pressure Targets and High Time in Therapeutic Range on Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Adherent to the Atrial Fibrillation Better Care Pathway: A Report From the COOL-AF Registry.

Background We aimed to determine the effect of integrating Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway compliance in relation to achievement of systolic blood pressure (SBP) targets and good control of time in therapeutic range (TTR) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results We prospectively enrolled patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation  from 27 hospitals in Thailand. All clinical outcomes were recorded. Main outcomes were the composite of all-cause death or ischemic stroke/systemic embolism (SSE), as well as secondary outcomes of all-cause death, SSE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and heart failure. An SBP of 120 to 140 mm Hg was considered good blood pressure control. Target TTR was a TTR ≥65%. A total of 3405 patients were studied (mean age 67.8 years, 41.8% female). Full ABC pathway compliance was evident in 42.7%. For blood pressure control, 41.9% had SBP within target, whereas 35.9% of those on warfarin had TTR within target. The incidence rates of all-cause death/SSE, all-cause death, SSE, major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage, and heart failure were 5.29, 4.21, 1.51, 2.25, 0.78, and 2.84 per 100 person-years respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios and 95% CI of Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway compliance for all-cause death/SSE, all-cause death, and heart failure were 0.76 (0.62-0.94), 0.79 (0.62-0.99), and 0.69 (0.51-0.94), respectively, compared with noncompliance. Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Better Care compliance and SBP within target had a better outcome or TTR within target had better outcomes. Conclusions In COOL-AF (Cohort of Antithrombotic Use and Optimal International Normalized Ratio Level in Patients With Non-Valvular Atrial Fibrillation in Thailand), a multicenter nationwide prospective cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation, achieving SBP within target and TTR ≥ 65% has added value to Atrial Fibrillation Better Care pathway compliance in the reduction of adverse clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Severe Bleeding Risk of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Vitamin K Antagonists for Stroke Prevention and Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: A systematic search of four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting severe bleeding events in patients taking DOACs or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). In this frequency-based network meta-analysis, odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used for reporting. Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA), the relative ranking probability of each group was generated. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs met the inclusion criteria, and a total of 87,616 patients were enrolled. The bleeding safety of DOACs for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF was ranked from highest to lowest as follows: fatal bleeding: edoxaban (SUCRA,80.2), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,68.3), apixaban (SUCRA,48.5), dabigatran (SUCRA,40.0), VKAs (SUCRA,12.9); major bleeding: dabigatran (SUCRA,74.0), apixaban (SUCRA,71.5), edoxaban (SUCRA,66.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,22.7), VKAs (SUCRA,15.4); gastrointestinal bleeding: apixaban (SUCRA,55.9), VKAs (SUCRA,53.7), edoxaban (SUCRA,50.5), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,50.4), dabigatran (SUCRA,39.5); intracranial hemorrhage: dabigatran (SUCRA,84.6), edoxaban (SUCRA,74.1), apixaban (SUCRA,65.8), rivaroxaban (SUCRA,24.4), VKAs (SUCRA,1.1). CONCLUSION: Based on current evidence, for stroke prevention and treatment in patients with AF, the most safe DOAC is edoxaban in terms of fatal bleeding; dabigatran in terms of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage and apixaban in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. However, given the nature of indirect comparisons, more high-quality evidence from head-to-head comparisons is still needed to confirm them.

High versus low fixed-dose four factor-prothrombin complex concentrate for warfarin reversal in patients with intracranial hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate 4F-PCC is the standard of care for warfarin reversal in patients with major bleed or requiring urgent surgery. Although the 4F-PCC dose is weight and international normalized ratio (INR) based, for practical purposes, a fixed-dose approach has been explored, especially for rapid reversal. We report our experience using two different fixed-dose 4F-PCC for warfarin reversal in patients presenting with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We completed a retrospective chart review comparing high (4000 units) versus low (2000 units) dose 4F-PCC by evaluating patient characteristics, laboratory data, and pre-and post-4F-PCC brain imaging. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between patient characteristics or INR correction (≤1.5) between the two groups. Eighty percent (12/15) of patients who received the low dose 4F-PCC had either improved or stable brain imaging as compared to 88% (14/16) of patients who received the high dose PCC. When the eight patients (4 from each arm of the study) who required neurosurgery were excluded, only two patients in each arm had worse imaging after 4F-PCC. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference between the INR correction and the brain imaging changes in patients with an ICH who received either the high or the low fixed-dose 4F-PCC for warfarin reversal.

Intracranial Hemorrhage Following Anticoagulant Treatment in Denmark: Spontaneous Adverse Drug Reaction Reports Versus Real-World Data.

INTRODUCTION: In Denmark, physicians are legally obliged to report serious adverse drug reactions (ADRs), such as intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) following anticoagulant (AC) treatment, to the Danish Medicines Agency. We were therefore puzzled to discover a high number of reports concerning ICHs following treatment with the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban compared with warfarin. This was surprising, as all DOACs have been found to be associated with a lower risk of ICH compared with warfarin in phase III randomized controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: The primary aim of the study was to estimate the level of underreporting of ICH as an ADR following treatment with warfarin, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. METHODS: This observational study covered a 5-year period (2014-2018). Using nationwide registries held by the Danish Health Data Authority, the number of users, exposure time in person-years, and related ICH events for each of the study drugs were estimated. Data on ADR-ICH reports were extracted from the interactive ADR overviews held by the Danish Medicines Agency. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 97.0% of the identified warfarin-related ICH events were not reported as ADRs. For the DOACs, the level of underreporting ranged from 88.8 to 90.8%. CONCLUSION: We found a heavy and differentiated level of underreporting of ICH as an ADR following treatment with the four study drugs.

Comparison of Low-Dose Direct Acting Anticoagulant and Warfarin in patients Aged ≥80 years With Atrial Fibrillation.

Low dose direct acting oral anticoagulants (LDDOACS) were approved for elderly atrial Fibrillation (AF) patients with limited information. A retrospective analysis collecting baseline characteristics and outcomes in AF patients ≥ 80 prescribed LDDOAC or warfarin (W), from a multidisciplinary practice between 1/1/11 (First LDDOAC available) and 5/31/17 was conducted. From 9660 AF patients, 514 ≥ 80 received a LDDOAC and 422 W. A multivariable comparison found LDDOAC patients were older (p <0.001), had lower creatinine clearance (CrCl) (p = 0.006), used more anti-platelet drugs (p <0.001), and more often had new onset AF verses those prescribed W (p <0.001). There were no clinically significant differences among those patients receiving Dabigatran 75 mgs BID (D), Rivaroxaban 15mgs (R) or Apixaban 2.5mgs BID (A). Forty-eight and 50% of the patients remained on their LDDOAC or W for the observation period (p = 0.55). Stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and CNS bleeds were 1.16 vs 2.22%/yr., (p = 0.143) and 1.46 vs 0.93%/yr., (p = 0.24). Mortality and major bleeds were 6.26 vs 1.67%/yr., and 12.3vs 3.77%/yr. (p <0.001). SSE were 1.1%/yr for D, R, and A (p = 0.94). CNS bleeds were 2.2 for D, 1.7 for R and 0.8%/yr. for A: p = 0.53. Major bleeding was: 14.3 for D, 14.1 for R and 9.1%/yr. for A, p = 0.048 (with A < R, p = 0.01). Mortality was 5.5 for D, 4.2 for R and 9.5% for A, p = 0.031. In conclusion, half the patients remained on their assigned anti-coagulant. SSE and intracranial bleed rates were similar and low. Major bleeds and deaths were different between groups emphasizing the need for prospective randomized trials in this growing population with AF.

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.

Emergent reversal of oral factor Xa inhibitors with four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding first-line use of the recently approved reversal agent andexanet alfa due to limitations of the ANEXXA-4 study, thrombotic risks, and high medication acquisition cost. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 4F-PCC for the reversal of emergent oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate a subgroup using strict ANNEXA-4 patient selection criteria. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted utilizing chart review of adult patients that received 4F-PCC for oral fXa inhibitor-related bleeding. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinical success defined as achieving excellent or good hemostatic effectiveness following the administration of 4F-PCC. Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and arterial/venous thromboembolism, and cost compared with andexanet alfa. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were included, with 83 patients in the ANNEXA-4 criteria subgroup. Eighty-five of the 119 patients (71%) required reversal due to intracranial bleeding. Prior to reversal, 70 patients (59%) were taking apixaban and 49 patients (41%) were taking rivaroxaban. Clinical success was achieved in 106 of 119 patients (89%) and 74 of 83 patients (90%) in the strict criteria subgroup. Three of 119 patients (2.5%) had a thrombotic event during hospital stay and the overall mortality rate was 13%. The average cost increase of andexanet alfa compared to 4F-PCC would have been $29,500 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of 4F-PCC for the reversal of oral fXa inhibitors was effective with relatively low thrombotic risk. Further direct prospective comparison of 4F-PCC to andexanet alfa is warranted.

Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in African American Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation.

INTRODUCTION: Black patients are under-represented in randomized trials evaluating oral anticoagulants in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in African Americans with NVAF. METHODS: We performed an analysis using Optum® De-Identified Electronic Health Record (EHR) data from 1/1/2012-9/30/2018. We included adult African American patients with a diagnosis of NVAF who were anticoagulant-naïve during the 12-months prior to initiation of rivaroxaban or warfarin. Patients receiving rivaroxaban were 1:1 propensity score matched to warfarin patients. Our primary effectiveness and safety outcomes were the 2-year incidence rates (%/year) of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding using an intention-to-treat approach. Cohorts were compared using doubly-robust Cox regression and reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: We matched 4102 rivaroxaban and 4102 warfarin users with a median (interquartile range) available follow-up of 2.0 (0.9, 2.0) years. Median CHA2DS2-VASc and HASBLED scores were 3 (2, 4) and 2 (1, 3). Rivaroxaban use was associated with a lower risk of SSE (1.99 versus 2.48, HR = 0.77, 95%CI = 0.60-0.99), ischemic stroke (1.84 versus 2.37, HR = 0.76, 95%CI = 0.59-0.98) and major bleeding (4.22 versus 4.98, HR = 0.84, 95%CI = 0.70-0.99). No differences in intracranial hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding were observed. Neither sensitivity analyses utilizing an on-treatment methodology nor inverse probability-of-treatment weighting showed significant differences in SSE or major bleeding between rivaroxaban and warfarin users. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban appeared at least as effective and safe as warfarin when used to manage African American patients with NVAF in routine practice.

Real-world utilization of andexanet alfa.

OBJECTIVE: In 2018, the FDA approved andexanet alfa for the reversal of life-threatening hemorrhages in patients anticoagulated with apixaban or rivaroxaban. Yet, cost-effective factor Xa inhibitor reversal remains controversial. The objective of this study was to describe real world utilization of andexanet alfa. METHODS: This was a retrospective case series of patients receiving andexanet alfa between July 28, 2018 and April 29, 2019 at a large academic health system. Baseline demographics, anticoagulant type and reversal, as well as brain imaging were collected. Primary endpoints were stability of hematoma for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and hemostatic effectiveness for patients undergoing surgical procedures. Secondary endpoints were thromboembolism and 30 day mortality. RESULTS: Of the 25 patients evaluated, 13 received andexanet alfa for ICH. Eleven of the 13 had follow-up imaging available and stability was observed in 90.9%. Three patients received andexanet alfa for reversal prior to surgical procedures, and 100% hemostatic effectiveness was achieved. Nine patients received andexanet alfa for reversal of extracranial bleeding, including gastrointestinal bleed (n=4). There were no thrombotic events in our cohort, and 30 day mortality was 24%. Sixty-four percent of patients would have met exclusion criteria for the ANNEXA-4 trial. CONCLUSION: This is the largest series to date describing real-world utilization of andexanet alfa. Our series showed hemostatic efficacy in 90.9% of patients with ICH, and 100% in patients undergoing surgical procedures. There were no thrombotic complications. Yet, larger and comparative studies are needed to clarify the optimal agent and patient selection for reversal of factor Xa inhibitors.

Low-Dose Rivaroxaban and Risks of Adverse Events in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

Background and Purpose- In the daily practice, low-dose nonvitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are commonly used among Asian patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of the present study was to compare the risks of ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and net clinical benefit of Asian patients with AF treated with off-label low-dose and on-label dosing rivaroxaban. Methods- A total of 2214 patients with AF aged ≥20 years treated with rivaroxaban at a tertiary medical center in Taiwan were studied. Patients were categorized into 2 groups: (1) on-label dose (n=1630): ROCKET-AF or J-ROCKET dosage criteria; and (2) off-label low-dose (10 mg/d for patients with an estimated glomerulus filtration rate >50 mL/min, n=584). The risks of ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage were compared between 2 groups. Results- Compared with the on-label dose group, off-label low-dose rivaroxaban was associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2.75; 95% CI =1.62-4.69; P<0.001). The risk intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the on-label and off-label low-dosing groups (adjusted hazard ratio =0.62; 95% CI =0.32-1.20; P=0.213). Compared with off-label low-dose group, on-label dosing rivaroxaban was associated with a positive net clinical benefit in different weighted models. The results were consistent among the propensity-matched cohort. Conclusions- Off-label low-dosing rivaroxaban should be avoided for Asian patients with AF giving the higher risk of ischemic stroke without risk reduction in intracranial hemorrhage compared with on-label dosing.

Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin in Patients With Cancer and Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background Several studies have investigated the effect of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with cancer, but the results remain controversial. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of NOACs versus warfarin in this population. Methods and Results We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases until February 16, 2019 for studies comparing the effect of NOACs with warfarin in AF patients with cancer. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs were extracted and pooled by a random-effects model. Five studies involving 8908 NOACs and 12 440 warfarin users were included. There were no significant associations between cancer status and risks of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, or death in AF patients. Compared with warfarin, NOACs were associated with decreased risks of stroke or systemic embolism (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28-0.99), venous thromboembolism (RR, 0.37, 95% CI, 0.22-0.63), and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98) and with borderline significant reductions in ischemic stroke (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.40-1.00) and major bleeding (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-1.00). In addition, risks of efficacy and safety outcomes of NOACs versus warfarin were similar between AF patients with and without cancer. Conclusions In patients with AF and cancer, compared with warfarin, NOACs had lower or similar rates of thromboembolic and bleeding events and posed a reduced risk of venous thromboembolism.

A Retrospective Study on Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban and Dalteparin for Long-Term Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients with Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) is low-molecular-weight heparin. The use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated VTE has increased; however, their efficacy and safety in lung cancer patients remain unclear. OBJECTIVES: We examined the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin for cancer-associated VTE in patients with primary lung cancer. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study of 204 patients with primary lung cancer who were prescribed rivaroxaban (n = 131) or dalteparin (n = 73) for VTE was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite event including recurrence and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of recurrence, major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, all-cause mortality, and bleeding or pulmonary embolism-related mortality. RESULTS: The composite event occurred in 38 (29.0) and 12 (16.4%) patients in the rivaroxaban and dalteparin (p = 0.045) groups, respectively. The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model for age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and bleeding risk factors revealed the rivaroxaban group showed a 1.176-fold composite event risk without statistical significance (0.595-2.324, p = 0.641). There was no statistically significant intergroup difference for the incidence of VTE recurrence (5.3% in the rivaroxaban group versus 2.7% in the dalteparin group, p = 0.495) and major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (23.7% in the rivaroxaban group versus 13.7% in the dalteparin group, p = 0.089). There was no significant difference in the all-cause mortality rate (hazard ratio 0.864, 95% CI 0.624-1.196, p = 0.337). CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in the safety and efficacy profile of rivaroxaban compared with dalteparin. Therefore, rivaroxaban may be a valuable treatment option for lung cancer-associated VTE.

Branch atheromatous disease diagnosed as embolic stroke of undetermined source: A sub-analysis of NAVIGATE ESUS.

BACKGROUND: Branch atheromatous disease (BAD) is distinctive from large and small arterial diseases, which is single subcortical infarction larger than lacunar stroke in the territories of deep perforators without relevant arterial stenosis. BAD meets the current criteria of embolic stroke of undetermined source. We performed an exploratory analysis of BAD in patients recruited to NAVIGATE embolic stroke of undetermined source, a randomized controlled trial to compare rivaroxaban and aspirin in embolic stroke of undetermined source patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 3972 stroke patients in cerebral hemispheres with intracranial arterial imaging, 502 (12.6%) patients met the criteria for BAD. BAD was associated with younger age (years; OR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.96-0.98), race (Asian; OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.44-2.21), region (Eastern Europe; OR: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.87-3.32), and higher National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (OR: 1.17, 95% CI: 1.12-1.22) at randomization. During follow-up, stroke or systemic embolism (2.5%/year vs. 6.2%/year, p = 0.0022), stroke (2.1%/year vs. 6.2%/year, p = 0.0008), and ischemic stroke (2.1%/year vs. 5.9%/year, p = 0.0013) occurred less frequently in BAD than non-BAD patients. There were no differences in annual rates of stroke or systemic embolism (2.5%/year vs. 2.5%/year, HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.33-3.14) or major bleeding (1.3%/year vs. 0.8%/year, HR: 1.51, 95% CI: 0.25-9.05) between rivaroxaban and aspirin groups among BAD patients. CONCLUSIONS: BAD was relatively common, especially in Asian and from Eastern Europe among embolic stroke of undetermined source patients. Stroke severity was higher at randomization but recurrence of stroke was fewer in BAD than non-BAD patients. The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban and aspirin did not differ among BAD patients.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Use and Risk of Gastrointestinal and Intracranial Bleeding.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are among the most commonly prescribed medications in the United States. Although SSRIs are highly tolerable relative to other antidepressants, they are associated with a number of adverse effects, including increased gastrointestinal tract bleeding and intracranial bleeding. Mechanisms include increased gastric acid secretion and inhibition of serotonin entrance into platelets. Patients with other bleeding risk factors, such as warfarin, clopidogrel, or aspirin use, may be at heightened risk of these adverse effects. The purpose of this article is to review the incidence of gastrointestinal tract bleeding or intracranial bleeding associated with concomitant SSRI use, the proposed mechanisms of, and the potential pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic interactions with anticoagulants and antiplatelets. Given the prevalence of SSRI use in the ambulatory setting, osteopathic physicians should be aware of potential drug-drug interactions and the clinical implications of SSRI-associated bleeding risk.

Higher Incidence of Ischemic Stroke in Patients Taking Novel Oral Anticoagulants.

Background and Purpose- The increased use of novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) to control atrial fibrillation is largely driven by the assumption that they are equally effective as warfarin at preventing ischemic stroke while putting patients at lower risk of hemorrhages. To test this hypothesis, a retrospective study of the relative incidence of strokes among patients taking NOACs versus those taking warfarin is performed. Methods- Relative stroke incidence in the 2 groups of patients was compared using odds ratios and Fisher exact tests for significance using a data set of 71 365 on NOACs and 59 546 patients on warfarin. In addition, the 7033 patients with a record of both warfarin and NOAC use were analyzed as a separate cohort. Results- There is a significantly higher (odds ratio=1.29, <0.001) frequency of ischemic strokes among patients prescribed NOACs compared with those on warfarin. The relative frequency of ischemic strokes was also higher for every individual NOAC compared with warfarin (these higher frequencies are statistically significant for dabigatran and apixaban, though not for edoxaban and rivaroxaban). There is a lower incidence of intracranial hemorrhages and nontraumatic hemorrhages in general among patients taking NOACs, consistent with the published literature. Comparisons of the demographic and clinical profiles of the patients taking NOACs to those on warfarin do not show significantly higher background stroke risk in NOAC patients; in fact, patients on NOACs tend to be at lower background risk overall for ischemic strokes. Conclusions- Because NOAC use is associated with higher ischemic stroke risk together with a lower risk of hemorrhages than warfarin use, it can be concluded that patients on warfarin are more strongly anticoagulated. The observed effect could be a secondary consequence of dosage control or alternatively a result of different anticoagulant effects among the different medications.

Comparison of Stroke Outcomes of Hub and Spoke Hospital Treated Patients in Mayo Clinic Telestroke Program.

PURPOSE: To examine telemedicine as it applies to acute ischemic stroke care at a spoke hospital and the effect on patient outcomes, including the timeliness of response, quality of care, safety, morbidity, and mortality when compared to standard hub hospital stroke center care. METHODS: Retrospective review of prospectively entered quality/performance stroke/telestroke patient catalog data were completed for 1000 adult patients who presented with an acute ischemic stroke to the Mayo Clinic Hospitals (500 patients) or to one of thirteen Mayo Clinic affiliated telestroke spoke hospitals in the regions (500 patients). The primary outcome of interest was the percentage of accurate decision making for eligibility of IV alteplase administration assessed by blinded adjudication and the secondary outcomes pertained to complications, discharge parameters, and standard quality metrics. RESULTS: There was no difference in the spoke hospital versus hub hospital groups in identifying and making the correct decision regarding which patients were eligible for IV alteplase administration (96% [95% confidence interval (CI): 94%-97%] versus 97% [95% CI: 95%-98%]; P = 0.32). There was no difference among the groups in proportion receiving IV alteplase, sustaining symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage, and mortality. Patients in the spoke group were less likely to have a favorable outcome at discharge, as defined by National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS): 0-1 or mRS: 0-1 or Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS): 0-1 (21% versus, 35%; P < 0.001), were less likely to have venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (46% versus 63%; P < 0.01), were less likely to have received antithrombotic therapy (85% versus 90%; P = .02), were less likely to be discharged on anticoagulation when indicated (56% versus 64%; P = .01), and were less likely to be prescribed cholesterol reducing treatment (68% versus 72%; P < .001). The initial acute care hospital length of stay was longer for the spoke hospital group by one day (median: 4 versus 3; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The key findings were that evidence-based stroke thrombolysis eligibility decision making, thrombolysis administration, and thrombolysis emergency stroke metrics were uniformly excellent for the spoke hospital group when compared to the standard hub hospital group. However, evidence-based stroke hospitalization and discharge metrics were inferior for the spoke hospital group when compared to the standard hub hospital.

Intracranial Hemorrhage in Deep Vein Thrombosis/Pulmonary Embolus Patients Without Atrial Fibrillation.

Background and Purpose- Deep vein thrombosis (DVTs) is a common disease with high morbidity if it progresses to pulmonary embolus (PE). Anticoagulation is the treatment of choice; warfarin has long been the standard of care. Early experience with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) suggests that these agents may be may be a safer and equally effective alternative in the treatment of DVT/PE. Nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) is one of the most devastating potential complications of anticoagulation therapy. We sought to compare the rates of ICH in patients treated with DOACs versus those treated with warfarin for DVT/PE. Methods- The MarketScan Commercial Claims and Medicare Supplemental databases were used. Adult DVT/PE patients without known atrial fibrillation and with prescriptions for either a DOAC or warfarin were followed for the occurrence of inpatient admission for ICH. Coarsened exact matching was used to balance the treatment cohorts. Cox proportional-hazards regressions and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to estimate the association between DOACs and the risk of ICH compared with warfarin. Results- The combined cohort of 218 620 patients had a median follow-up of 3.0 months, mean age of 55.4 years, and was 52.1% women. The DOAC cohort had 26 980 patients and 8 ICH events (1.0 cases per 1000 person-years), and the warfarin cohort had 191 640 patients and 324 ICH events (3.3 cases per 1000 person-years; P<0.0001). The DOAC cohort had a lower hazard ratio for ICH compared with warfarin in both the unmatched (hazard ratio=0.26; P=0.0002) and matched (hazard ratio=0.20; P=0.0001) Cox proportional-hazards regressions. Conclusions- DOACs show superior safety to warfarin in terms of risk of ICH in patients with DVT/PE.