Fiabilidad del coagulómetro portátil en pacientes con ictus isquémico agudo tratados con fibrinólisis intravenosa / Reliability of point-of-care coagulometer measurements in patients with acute ischaemic stroke receiving intravenous fibrinolysis

INTRODUCCIÓN: La eficacia de la fibrinólisis intravenosa como tratamiento en el ictus isquémico agudo depende de la rapidez en su administración. Para reducir el riesgo de complicaciones hemorrágicas existen contraindicaciones, como una INR ≥ 1,7. Nuestro objetivo fue determinar la fiabilidad del valor de INR obtenido mediante el coagulómetro portátil (CP) CoaguChek XS ® (CPINR) frente al resultado del laboratorio (LINR). MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo observacional de pacientes consecutivos con ictus isquémico tratados con fibrinólisis intravenosa en nuestro centro durante 4 años. La INR fue medida con CP y en el laboratorio. Se compararon ambos valores mediante t de Student para datos apareados y, tomando como referencia la LINR, se realizó análisis ROC para determinar la CPINR con mayor valor predictivo. RESULTADOS: Analizamos a 210 pacientes, con edad media 74,3 ± 11,5 años, y 18 (8,6%) tomaban anticoagulantes orales antivitamina K. Se compararon LINR y CPINR sin evidenciarse diferencias significativas (diferencia LINR-CPINR -0,001 ± 0,085; p = 0,82). En el análisis por subgrupos: para pacientes con anticoagulantes orales (diferencia LINR-CPINR 0,001 ± 0,081; p = 0,42) y para LINR ≤ 1,2 (diferencia LINR-CPINR -0,008 ± 0,081; p = 0,16) ambas técnicas fueron concordantes, mientras que para LINR >1,2, CPINR infraestimó la INR (diferencia LINR-CPINR 0,058 ± 0,095; p = 0,01). Mediante análisis ROC una CPINR < 1,6 fue el punto de corte más sensible y específico para seleccionar pacientes tratables con fibrinólisis intravenosa (LINR < 1,7). CONCLUSIONES: El CP en el código ictus tiene una buena concordancia con el laboratorio. Este estudio indica que en nuestro centro una CPINR < 1,6 es el mejor umbral para predecir una LINR < 1,7. La validación de la CPINR en cada centro es recomendable para su uso protocolizado

BACKGROUND: Speed of administration conditions the effectiveness of intravenous fibrinolysis in treating acute ischaemic stroke. To reduce the risk of haemorrhagic complications, the intervention is contraindicated in certain cases, such as where the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is ≥ 1.7. This study aimed to determine the reliability of point-of-care INR readings (POC-INR) taken using the CoaguChek ® XS portable coagulometer compared to laboratory results (L-INR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients admitted to our centre with acute ischaemic stroke and who were treated with intravenous fibrinolysis, over a period of 4 years. Patients' INR was measured with a portable coagulometer and in the laboratory. Results were compared using the paired-sample t test; using L-INR results as a reference value, ROC analysis was performed to determine POC-INR with greater predictive value. RESULTS: The study included 210 patients with a mean age of 74.3 ± 11.5 years old; 18 (8.6%) were taking vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (OAC). There were no significant differences between the 2 INR measurements in the population as a whole (POC-INR-L-INR difference: 0.001 ± 0.085; P=.82). In subgroup analysis, the results coincided for patients taking OACs (0.001 ± 0.081; P=.42) and those with L-INR ≤ 1.2 (0.008 ± 0.081; P=.16). For L-INR>1.2, however, the portable coagulometer underestimated INR (0.058±0.095; P=.01). Through ROC analysis, POC-INR < 1.6 was found to be the cut-off point with greatest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98.97%) for identifying patients eligible for intravenous fibrinolysis (L-INR < 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: POC-INR shows a good correlation with L-INR. Our results suggest that the best threshold to predict an L-INR < 1.7 is POC-INR < 1.6. Internal validation studies for POC-INR should be considered in all treatment centres

Cierre de orejuela en pacientes con hemorragia intracraneal y fibrilación auricular / Left atrial appendage closure in patients with intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCCIÓN: El uso de anticoagulantes orales es controvertido en pacientes con antecedentes de fibrilación auricular (FA) y hemorragia intracraneal (HIC), por riesgo de recurrencia de ictus hemorrágico. Presentamos la experiencia de nuestro centro en relación con la seguridad y la eficacia del cierre percutáneo de orejuela (CPO), una alternativa a la anticoagulación en dicho contexto. MÉTODOS: Estudio observacional, retrospectivo y unicéntrico. El CPO se realizó en pacientes con antecedentes de HIC y FA no valvular. El riesgo de eventos isquémicos y hemorrágicos se estimó usando las escalas CHA2DS2Vasc y HAS-BLED. Se registraron: complicaciones periprocedimiento, recurrencia de HIC, embolismo cerebral/sistémico, mortalidad tras el cierre y al seguimiento y uso de antitrombóticos tras el procedimiento. RESULTADOS: El CPO se realizó en 9 pacientes (7 hombres, 2 mujeres). Se utilizó en 7 casos el dispositivo Amplatzer Amulet y en 2 el Amplatzer Cardiac Plug. La media de edad fue 72,7 ± 8,2 años. El tiempo entre la HIC y el CPO fue menor de un mes en 5 pacientes y mayor en 4. La mediana y el rango intercuartil para la escala CHA2DS2Vasc fueron de 4 y 2,5, respectivamente, siendo de 3 y 0 para la escala HAS-BLED. No hubo complicaciones periprocedimiento. Todos recibieron antiagregación simple tras el procedimiento (5 clopidogrel y 4 aspirina); en 5 se mantuvo 6 meses, en 4 indefinidamente. Durante el seguimiento (15 meses de promedio) no se registraron eventos isquémicos ni hemorrágicos. CONCLUSIONES: En nuestra serie, el CPO supone una alternativa segura y eficaz en pacientes que han presentado HIC y que precisan ser anticoagulados por FA

INTRODUCTION: The use of oral anticoagulants in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) is controversial on account of the risk of haemorrhagic stroke recurrence. This study presents our experience regarding the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), an alternative to anticoagulation in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre, observational study. LAAC was performed in patients with a history of ICH and non-valvular AF. Risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic events was estimated using the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scales. We recorded periprocedural complications, IHC recurrence, cerebral/systemic embolism, mortality and use of antithrombotic drugs following the procedure. RESULTS: LAAC was performed in 9 patients (7 men, 2 women) using the AMPLATZER Amulet device in 7 cases and the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug device in 2. Mean age was 72.7 ± 8.2 years. Time between ICH and LAAC was less than one month in 5 patients and more than one month in 4 patients. Median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (interquartile range of 2.5). Median HAS-BLED score was 3 (interquartile range of 0). No periprocedural complications were recorded. All patients received single anti-platelet therapy (clopidogrel in 5 patients, aspirin in 4) after the procedure; 5 patients received this treatment for 6 months and 4 received it indefinitely. No ischaemic or haemorrhagic events were recorded during follow-up (mean duration of 15 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, LAAC was found to be safe and effective in patients with a history of ICH who required anticoagulation due to AF

Left atrial appendage closure in patients with intracranial haemorrhage and atrial fibrillation. / Cierre de orejuela en pacientes con hemorragia intracraneal y fibrilación auricular.

INTRODUCTION: The use of oral anticoagulants in patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF) and intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) is controversial on account of the risk of haemorrhagic stroke recurrence. This study presents our experience regarding the safety and efficacy of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC), an alternative to anticoagulation in these patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, single-centre, observational study. LAAC was performed in patients with a history of ICH and non-valvular AF. Risk of ischaemic and haemorrhagic events was estimated using the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scales. We recorded periprocedural complications, IHC recurrence, cerebral/systemic embolism, mortality and use of antithrombotic drugs following the procedure. RESULTS: LAAC was performed in 9 patients (7 men, 2 women) using the AMPLATZER Amulet device in 7 cases and the AMPLATZER Cardiac Plug device in 2. Mean age was 72.7±8.2 years. Time between ICH and LAAC was less than one month in 5 patients and more than one month in 4 patients. Median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4 (interquartile range of 2.5). Median HAS-BLED score was 3 (interquartile range of 0). No periprocedural complications were recorded. All patients received single anti-platelet therapy (clopidogrel in 5 patients, aspirin in 4) after the procedure; 5 patients received this treatment for 6 months and 4 received it indefinitely. No ischaemic or haemorrhagic events were recorded during follow-up (mean duration of 15 months). CONCLUSIONS: In our series, LAAC was found to be safe and effective in patients with a history of ICH who required anticoagulation due to AF.

Reliability of point-of-care coagulometer measurements in patients with acute ischaemic stroke receiving intravenous fibrinolysis. / Fiabilidad del coagulómetro portátil en pacientes con ictus isquémico agudo tratados con fibrinólisis intravenosa.

BACKGROUND: Speed of administration conditions the effectiveness of intravenous fibrinolysis in treating acute ischaemic stroke. To reduce the risk of haemorrhagic complications, the intervention is contraindicated in certain cases, such as where the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is ≥ 1.7. This study aimed to determine the reliability of point-of-care INR readings (POC-INR) taken using the CoaguChek® XS portable coagulometer compared to laboratory results (L-INR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study of consecutive patients admitted to our centre with acute ischaemic stroke and who were treated with intravenous fibrinolysis, over a period of 4 years. Patients' INR was measured with a portable coagulometer and in the laboratory. Results were compared using the paired-sample t test; using L-INR results as a reference value, ROC analysis was performed to determine POC-INR with greater predictive value. RESULTS: The study included 210 patients with a mean age of 74.3±11.5 years old; 18 (8.6%) were taking vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (OAC). There were no significant differences between the 2 INR measurements in the population as a whole (POC-INR-L-INR difference: 0.001±0.085; P=.82). In subgroup analysis, the results coincided for patients taking OACs (0.001±0.081; P=.42) and those with L-INR ≤ 1.2 (0.008±0.081; P=.16). For L-INR>1.2, however, the portable coagulometer underestimated INR (0.058±0.095; P=.01). Through ROC analysis, POC-INR < 1.6 was found to be the cut-off point with greatest sensitivity (100%) and specificity (98.97%) for identifying patients eligible for intravenous fibrinolysis (L-INR < 1.7). CONCLUSIONS: POC-INR shows a good correlation with L-INR. Our results suggest that the best threshold to predict an L-INR < 1.7 is POC-INR < 1.6. Internal validation studies for POC-INR should be considered in all treatment centres.