Platelet inhibitor withdrawal and outcomes after coronary artery surgery: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between guideline-conforming as compared to shorter than recommended withdrawal period of P2Y12 receptor inhibitors prior to isolated on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the incidence of severe bleeding and ischaemic events. Randomized controlled trials are lacking in this field. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, Embase and other suitable databases for studies including patients on P2Y12 receptor inhibitors undergoing isolated CABG and reporting bleeding and postoperative ischaemic events from 2013 to March 2024. The primary outcome was incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 4 (BARC-4) bleeding defined as any of the following: perioperative intracranial bleeding, reoperation for bleeding, transfusion of ≥5 units of red blood cells, chest tube output of ≥2 l. The secondary outcome was postoperative ischaemic events according to the Academic Research Consortium 2 Consensus Document. Patient-level data provided by each observational trial were synthesized into a single dataset and analysed using a 2-stage IPD-MA. RESULTS: Individual data of 4837 patients from 7 observational studies were synthesized. BARC-4 bleeding, 30-day mortality and postoperative ischaemic events occurred in 20%, 2.6% and 5.2% of patients. After adjusting for EuroSCORE II and cardiopulmonary bypass time, guideline-conforming withdrawal was associated with decreased BARC-4 bleeding risk in patients on clopidogrel [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.48; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.28-0.81; P = 0.006] and a trend towards decreased risk in patients on ticagrelor (adjusted OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.22-1.05; P = 0.067). Guideline-conforming withdrawal was not significantly associated with 30-day mortality risk (clopidogrel: adjusted OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.30-1.61; ticagrelor: adjusted OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.37-2.18) but with decreased risk of postoperative ischaemic events in patients on clopidogrel (clopidogrel: adjusted OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.30-0.82; ticagrelor: adjusted OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.45-1.37). BARC-4 bleeding was associated with 30-day mortality risk (adjusted OR 4.76; 95% CI 2.67-8.47; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Guideline-conforming preoperative withdrawal of ticagrelor and clopidogrel was associated with a 50% reduced BARC-4 bleeding risk when corrected for EuroSCORE II and cardiopulmonary bypass time but was not associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality or postoperative ischaemic events.

How do type of preoperative P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and withdrawal time affect bleeding? Protocol of a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: In order to reduce the risk of bleeding in patients on P2Y12 receptor inhibitors presenting for non-emergent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), current guidelines recommend a preoperative discontinuation period of at least three, five and seven days for ticagrelor, clopidogrel and prasugrel, respectively, to allow for recovery of platelet function. However, there is still substantial interinstitutional variation in preoperative management and relevant covariates of CABG-related bleeding are largely elusive so far. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed (July 2013 to November 2021) and EMBASE (January 2014 to November 2021) using the following terms, MeSH terms and their synonyms: clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, dual antiplatelet, P2Y12 receptor inhibitor, CABG, bleeding, haemorrhage. Two independent reviewers will screen all abstracts and full papers for eligibility. Disagreements will be solved by consulting with a third reviewer.The primary outcome is the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type-4 bleeding depending on type of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and preoperative withdrawal period. The secondary outcomes are mortality and ischaemic events according to the Academic Research Consortium 2 Consensus Document. We will perform an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) with drug-specific preoperative withdrawal time and adjust for demographic and procedural variables. Subgroup analyses will be performed for anaemic patients and patients undergoing non-emergent versus urgent/emergent surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This IPD-MA consists of secondary analyses of existing non-identifiable data and meets the criteria for waiver of ethics review by the local Research Ethics Committee. Data sharing and transfer will be subject to a confidentiality agreement and a data use agreement. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022291946.

High-dose intravenous versus oral iron in blood donors with iron deficiency: The IronWoMan randomized, controlled clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Frequent blood donation often leads to iron deficiency and even anemia but appropriate strategies for detection and prevention are currently not mandatory. At the Medical University of Graz, we conducted a single-center prospective clinical trial to compare oral and IV iron supplementation in iron deficient blood donors including Austrian regular whole blood and platelet apheresis donors. We aimed to determine the difference of transferrin saturation between the treatment groups 8-12 weeks iron administration besides other parameters of iron status and blood count. METHODS: 176 healthy male and female blood donors with iron deficiency (ferritin ≤30 ng/mL) were randomized to either a single dose of IV ferric carboxymaltose (1000 mg, n = 86) or oral iron (II)fumarate (100 tablets of 100 mg [10 per week], n = 90). RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2016, 172 donors (137 women) completed the study; 4 in the oral group were lost to follow-up. At follow-up, median (IQR) transferrin saturation and ferritin were significantly higher in the intravenous group (27 [23-35]%, vs 21.0 [16-32]%; p < 0.001 and 105 [75-145] ng/mL vs 25 [17-34] ng/mL; p < 0.001, respectively) while median (IQR) hemoglobin levels were comparable (IV, 13.6 [13.0-14.4] g/dL vs oral, 13.6 [13.0-14.2] g/dL). The frequency of adverse effects was comparable (38% in both groups) and no serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of 1000 mg of intravenous iron is highly effective to counteract iatrogenic iron deficiency in blood donors. Oral iron appears to be an acceptable alternative. The assessment of body iron stores should play a key role in maintaining blood donors' health. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01787526 on February 8, 2013 and at www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT identifier: 2013-000327-14) on September 24, 2013.

High-dose intravenously administered iron versus orally administered iron in blood donors with iron deficiency: study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About 2-3 % of the population participates in blood donation programmes. Each whole blood donation or ten apheresis donations cause a loss of 200-250 mg of iron. As a result, one of the most common risks of regular blood donors is iron deficiency. Although this has been known for decades, in most countries, iron status is currently not assessed or treated in this population. Premenopausal women are particularly affected, as they have lower iron reserves and higher daily requirements. Besides anaemia, iron deficiency may lead to fatigue and impaired cognitive and physical performance. Current iron preparations for intravenous administration are well tolerated and allow for application of large doses up to 1 g in one visit. Our hypothesis is that in blood donors with iron deficiency, intravenously administered iron is more efficient and as safe as oral iron supplementation. Since anaemia is one of the most frequent reasons for permanent or intermittent donor deferral, maintaining an iron-replete donor pool may help to prevent shortages in blood supply and to avoid iron deficiency-related comorbidities. METHODS/DESIGN: In this randomised clinical trial we include male and female blood donors aged ≥18 and ≤65 years with a ferritin value of ≤30 ng/ml. Stratified by gender, participants are randomized with a web-based randomisation tool in a 1:1 ratio to either 1 g of intravenously administered ferric carboxymaltose or 10 g of iron fumarate supplements at one to two daily doses of 100 mg each. Eight to 12 weeks after the first visit, iron status, blood count and symptoms are assessed in both groups. The primary endpoint is the difference in transferrin saturation (%) following the intervention between both groups. Secondary endpoints include other parameters of iron metabolism and red blood cell count, the number of patients with drug-related adverse events, and subjective symptoms including those of the restless legs syndrome, quality of life, and fatigue. DISCUSSION: Iron supplementation administered intravenously in non-anaemic but iron-deficient blood donors could represent an effective strategy to protect blood donors from comorbidities related with iron deficiency and therefore improve blood donor wellbeing. Furthermore, iron supplementation will help to maintain an iron-replete blood donor pool. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2013-000327-14, Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT01787526 . Registered on 6 February 2013.