Advertisements
Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Coagulation Therapy and Internal Bleeding’ Category


The Promise of Low-Dose Aspirin on Longevity in the Geriatric Population: No Effect on Outcomes in the US and Australia

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED on 10/17/2018

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1800722

Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Elderly

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of Aspirin on Disability-free Survival in the Healthy Elderly

J.J. McNeil and Others

    

McNeil et al. conducted the randomized, placebo-controlled Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial to investigate whether the daily use of aspirin, at a dose of 100 mg, in healthy, community-dwelling older adults would prolong a healthy life span, free from dementia and persistent physical disability. Trial participants were community-dwelling men and women from Australia and the United States who were 70 years of age or older (or ≥65 years of age among blacks and Hispanics in the United States).

Clinical Pearls

  Is there any evidence to support the use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular or other chronic disease in healthy older adults?

Several large, randomized trials have shown the efficacy of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease among persons with a history of coronary heart disease or stroke. The evidence supporting a benefit of aspirin therapy in the primary prevention of cardiovascular or other chronic disease is less conclusive despite favorable trends suggesting that aspirin use reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events and possibly reduces the incidence of cancer and cancer-related mortality, particularly from colorectal cancer.

  Does the daily use of 100 mg of aspirin prolong a healthy lifespan in older adults without cardiovascular disease, dementia, or physical disability?

In the ASPREE trial, the daily use of 100 mg of enteric-coated aspirin did not differ significantly from placebo in influencing the rates of disability-free survival at a median of 4.7 years. The primary end point of death, dementia, or physical disability occurred in 921 participants in the aspirin group (21.5 events per 1000 person-years) and in 914 in the placebo group (21.2 events per 1000 person-years). The between-group difference was not significant (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11; P=0.79). Among participants who had a primary end-point event, death was the most common first event (in 911 participants [50% of the events] at a mean age of 77.5 years), dementia was the next most common (in 549 participants [30% of the events] at a mean age of 77.7 years), and persistent physical disability was the least common.

Morning Report Questions

Q. How does a daily aspirin dose of 100 mg influence rates of death from any cause and the risk of major hemorrhage in healthy older adults?

A. In the ASPREE trial, the secondary end point of death from any cause, denoting death as the first, second, or third event to occur in the primary end point, occurred in 558 participants in the aspirin group (12.7 events per 1000 person-years) and in 494 participants in the placebo group (11.1 events per 1000 person-years) (hazard ratio, 1.14; unadjusted 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.29). Because there was no adjustment for multiple comparisons of secondary end points, no inferences can be made regarding differences in mortality between the two groups. Major hemorrhage occurred in 3.8% of the participants in the aspirin group, as compared with 2.8% of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.62; P<0.001). Fatal or nonfatal hemorrhagic stroke (including subarachnoid hemorrhage) occurred in 49 participants (0.5%) in the aspirin group and in 40 (0.4%) in the placebo group.

Q. How generalizable are the results of the ASPREE trial?

A. White participants comprised 91% of the overall trial cohort. Owing to the small number of blacks and Hispanics (including participants who were younger than 70 years of age) and other nonwhites, the applicability of the main findings of the ASPREE trial to these subgroups is unclear.

 

Daily Low-Dose Aspirin Found to Have No Effect on Healthy Life Span in Older People?

According to 3 articles published online The New England Journal of Medicine (16 September 2018), daily low-dose aspirin was found to have no effect on healthy life span in older people. This large NIH-funded study examined outcomes in United States and Australia

Results showed that in a large clinical trial to determine the risks and benefits of daily low-dose aspirin in healthy older adults without previous cardiovascular events,

Aspirin did not prolong healthy, independent living (life free of dementia or persistent physical disability).

Risk of dying from a range of causes, including cancer and heart disease, varied and will require further analysis and additional follow-up of study participants. These initial findings from the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) trial, partially supported by the National Institutes of Health.

ASPREE is an international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled 19,114 older people (16,703 in Australia and 2,411 in the United States). The study began in 2010 and enrolled participants aged 70 and older; 65 was the minimum age of entry for African-American and Hispanic individuals in the United States because of their higher risk for dementia and cardiovascular disease. At study enrollment, ASPREE participants could not have dementia or a physical disability and had to be free of medical conditions requiring aspirin use. They were followed for an average of 4.7 years to determine outcomes.

In the total study population, treatment with 100 mg of low-dose aspirin per day did not affect survival free of dementia or disability. Among the people randomly assigned to take aspirin,

  • 90.3% remained alive at the end of the treatment without persistent physical disability or dementia, compared with 90.5% of those taking a placebo.
  • Rates of physical disability were similar, and rates of dementia were almost identical in both groups. However,
  • the group taking aspirin had an increased risk of death compared to the placebo group: 5.9% of participants taking aspirin and 5.2% taking placebo died during the study.

This effect of aspirin has not been noted in previous studies; and caution is needed in interpreting this finding. The higher death rate in the aspirin-treated group was due primarily to a higher rate of cancer deaths. A small increase in new cancer cases was reported in the group taking aspirin but the difference could have been due to chance. The authors also analyzed the ASPREE results to determine whether cardiovascular events took place. They found that

  • the rates for major cardiovascular events — including coronary heart disease, nonfatal heart attacks, and fatal and nonfatal ischemic stroke — were similar in the aspirin and the placebo groups. In the aspirin group, 448 people experienced cardiovascular events, compared with 474 people in the placebo group.

Significant bleeding — a known risk of regular aspirin use — was also measured. The authors noted that

  • aspirin was associated with a significantly increased risk of bleeding, primarily in the gastrointestinal tract and brain. Clinically significant bleeding — hemorrhagic stroke, bleeding in the brain, gastrointestinal hemorrhages or hemorrhages at other sites that required transfusion or hospitalization — occurred in 361 people (3.8%) on aspirin and in 265 (2.7%) taking the placebo.
  • As would be expected in an older adult population, cancer was a common cause of death, and 50% of the people who died in the trial had some type of cancer.
  • Heart disease and stroke accounted for 19% of the deaths and major bleeding for 5%.

The ASPREE team is continuing to analyze the results of this study and has implemented plans for monitoring participants. As these efforts continue, the authors emphasized that older adults should follow the advice from their own physicians about daily aspirin use. It is important to note that the new findings do not apply to people with a proven indication for aspirin such as stroke, heart attack or other cardiovascular disease. In addition, the study did not address aspirin’s effects in people younger than age 65. Also, since only 11% of participants had regularly taken low-dose aspirin prior to entering the study, the implications of ASPREE’s findings need further investigation to determine whether healthy older people who have been regularly using aspirin for disease prevention should continue or discontinue use.

SOURCE

From: OnTarget <ontarget@targethealth.com>

Date: September 23, 2018 at 10:47:06 PM EDT

To: avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

Subject: OnTarget Newsletter

 

Other 121 articles on ASPIRIN were published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal, including the following:

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/?s=Aspirin

Advertisements

Read Full Post »


Two Classes of Antithrombotic Drugs: Anticoagulants and Antiplatelet drugs

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
These drugs are used to treat
  • strokes,
  • myocardial infarctions,
  • pulmonary embolisms,
  • disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and
  • deep vein thrombosis (DVT)
— all potentially life-threatening conditions.
THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES
• Degrade fibrinogen/fibrin (fibrinolytic agents)
GOAL: eliminate formed clots
• Inhibit clotting mechanism (anticoagulants)
GOAL: prevent progression of thrombosis
• Interfere either with platelet adhesion and/or aggregation (antiplatelet drugs)
GOAL: prevent initial clot formation
Antithrombotic therapy has had an enormous impact in several significant ways.
  • Heparin has made bypass surgery and dialysis possible by blocking clotting in external tubing.
  • Antithrombotic therapy has reduced the risk of blood clots in leg veins (also known as deep-vein thrombosis or DVT), a condition that can lead to death from pulmonary embolism (a clot that blocks an artery to the lungs) by more than 70 percent. And most importantly,
  • it has markedly reduced death from heart attacks, the risk of stroke in people with heart irregularities (atrial fibrillation), and the risk of major stroke in patients with mini-strokes.

Antithrombotic Therapy

This article was published in December 2008 as part of the special ASH anniversary brochure, 50 Years in Hematology: Research That Revolutionized Patient Care.

Normally, blood flows through our arteries and veins smoothly and efficiently, but if a clot, or thrombus, blocks the smooth flow of blood, the result – called thrombosis – can be serious and even cause death. Diseases arising from clots in blood vessels include heart attack and stroke, among others. These disorders collectively are the most common cause of death and disability in the developed world. We now have an array of drugs that can be used to prevent and treat thrombosis – and there are more on the way – but this was not always the case.

Classes of Antithrombotic Drugs

Image Source: http://www.hematology.org/About/History/50-Years/1523.aspx

The most important components of a thrombus are fibrin and platelets. Fibrin is a protein that forms a mesh that traps red blood cells, while platelets, a type of blood cell, form clumps that add to the mass of the thrombus. Both fibrin and platelets stabilize the thrombus and prevent it from falling apart. Fibrin is the more important component of clots that form in veins, and platelets are the more important component of clots that form in arteries where they can cause heart attacks and strokes by blocking the flow of blood in the heart and brain, respectively, although fibrin plays an important role in arterial thrombosis as well.

There are two classes of antithrombotic drugs: anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs. Anticoagulants slow down clotting, thereby reducing fibrin formation and preventing clots from forming and growing. Antiplatelet agents prevent platelets from clumping and also prevent clots from forming and growing.

Anticoagulant Drugs

The anticoagulants heparin and dicumarol were discovered by chance, long before we understood how they worked. Heparin was first discovered in 1916 by a medical student at The Johns Hopkins University who was investigating a clotting product from extracts of dog liver and heart. In 1939, dicumarol (the precursor to warfarin) was extracted by a biochemist at the University of Wisconsin from moldy clover brought to him by a farmer whose prize bull had bled to death after eating the clover.

Both of these anticoagulants have been used effectively to prevent clots since 1940. These drugs produce a highly variable anticoagulant effect in patients, requiring their effect to be measured by special blood tests and their dose adjusted according to the results. Heparin acts immediately and is given intravenously (through the veins). Warfarin is swallowed in tablet form, but its anticoagulant effect is delayed for days. Therefore, until recently, patients requiring anticoagulants who were admitted to a hospital were started on a heparin infusion and were then discharged from the hospital after five to seven days on warfarin.

In the 1970s, three different groups of researchers in Stockholm, London, and Hamilton, Ontario, began work on low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). LMWH is produced by chemically splitting heparin into one-third of its original size. It has fewer side effects than heparin and produces a more predictable anticoagulant response. By the mid 1980s, LMWH preparations were being tested in clinical trials, and they have now replaced heparin for most indications. Because LMWH is injected subcutaneously (under the skin) in a fixed dose without the need for anticoagulant monitoring, patients can now be treated at home instead of at the hospital.

With the biotechnology revolution has come genetically engineered “designer” anticoagulant molecules that target specific clotting enzymes. Anti-clotting substances and their DNA were also extracted from an array of exotic creatures (ticks, leeches, snakes, and vampire bats) and converted into drugs by chemical synthesis or genetic engineering. Structural chemists next began to fabricate small molecules designed to fit into the active component of clotting enzymes, like a key into a lock.

The first successful synthetic anticoagulants were fondaparinux and bivalirudin. Bivalirudin, a synthetic molecule based on the structure of hirudin (the anti-clotting substance found in leeches), is an effective treatment for patients with heart attacks. Fondaparinux is a small molecule whose structure is based on the active component of the much larger LMWH and heparin molecules. It has advantages over LMWH and heparin and has recently been approved by the FDA. Newer designer drugs that target single clotting factors and that can be taken by mouth are undergoing clinical testing. If successful, we will have safer and more convenient replacements for warfarin, the only oral anticoagulant available for more than 60 years.

Antiplatelet Drugs

Blood platelets are inactive until damage to blood vessels or blood coagulation causes them to explode into sticky irregular cells that clump together and form a thrombus. The first antiplatelet drug was aspirin, which has been used to relieve pain for more than 100 years. In the mid-1960s, scientists showed that aspirin prevented platelets from clumping, and subsequent clinical trials showed that it reduces the risk of stroke and heart attack. In 1980, researchers showed that aspirin in very low doses (much lower than that required to relieve a headache) blocked the production of a chemical in platelets that is required for platelet clumping. During that time, better understanding of the process of platelet clumping allowed the development of designer antiplatelet drugs directed at specific targets. We now have more potent drugs, such as clopidogrel, dipyridamole, and abciximab. These drugs are used with aspirin and effectively prevent heart attack and stroke; they also prolong the lives of patients who have already had a heart attack.

SOURCE 
Anticoagulation Drugs:
  • heparin (FONDAPARINUX HEPARIN (Calciparine, Hepathrom, Lipo-Hepin, Liquaemin, Panheprin)
  • warfarin – 4-HYDROXYCOUMARIN (Coumadin) WARFARIN (Athrombin-K, Panwarfin)
  • rivaroxaban (Xarelto)
  • dabigatran (Pradaxa)
  • apixaban (Eliquis)
  • edoxaban (Savaysa)
  • enoxaparin (Lovenox)
  • fondaparinux (Arixtra)
  • ARGATROBAN BIVALIRUDIN (Angiomax)
  • DALTEPARIN (Fragmin)
  • DROTRECOGIN ALFA (ACTIVATED PROTEIN C) (Xigris)
  • HIRUDIN (Desirudin)
  • LEPIRUDIN (Refludan)
  • XIMELAGATRAN (Exanta)

ANTIDOTES

  • PHYTONADIONE (Vitamin K1)
  • PROTAMINE SULFATE AMINOCAPROIC ACID (EACA) (generic, Amicar) (in bleeding disorders)
Antiplatelet Drugs
  • ACETYL SALICYLIC ACID (aspirin) 
  • clopidogrel (Plavix)
  • dipyridamole (Persantine)
  • abciximab (Centocor)
  • EPTIFIBATIDE (Integrilin)
  • TICLOPIDINE (Ticlid)
  • TIROFIBAN (Aggrastat)

THROMBOLYTICS

  1. ANISTREPLASE (APSAC; Eminase)
  2. STREPTOKINASE (Streptase, Kabikinase)
  3. TISSUE PLASMINOGEN ACTIVATORS (tPAs):
  • ALTEPLASE (Activase),
  • RETEPLASE (Retavase),
  • TENECTEPLASE (TNKase)
  • UROKINASE (Abbokinase)

Fibrinolytic Drugs

Fibrinolytic therapy is used in selected patients with venous thromboembolism. For example, patients with massive or submassive PE can benefit from systemic or catheter-directed fibrinolytic therapy. The latter can also be used as an adjunct to anticoagulants for treatment of patients with extensive iliofemoral-vein thrombosis.

Arterial and venous thrombi are composed of platelets and fibrin, but the proportions differ.

  • Arterial thrombi are rich in platelets because of the high shear in the injured arteries. In contrast,
  • venous thrombi, which form under low shear conditions, contain relatively few platelets and are predominantly composed of fibrin and trapped red cells.
  • Because of the predominance of platelets, arterial thrombi appear white, whereas venous thrombi are red in color, reflecting the trapped red cells.

SOURCE

Read Full Post »


Advantages and Disadvantages of Novel Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs)

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

In the past four years, three novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) medications have become available:
  • apixaban (Eliquis®),
  • dabigatran (Pradaxa®), and
  • rivaroxaban (Xarelto®). A fourth NOAC,
  • edoxaban (Savaysa™), has been submitted for approval by the US Food and Drug Administration …

Two small to moderate size trials have shown similar bleeding risk with other NOACs (VENTURE-AF with rivaroxaban [Xarelto] and RE-CIRCUIT with dabigatran [Pradaxa]) compared with vitamin K antagonists. In a non-formal “eyeball” meta-analysis with AXAFA-AFNET 5, combined death, stroke or transient ischemic attack, and major bleeding risk appeared to trend lower with a NOAC than vitamin K antagonist.

However, “differences in populations and procedures may well explain the different outcomes in bleeding rates and silent strokes with NOAC versus vitamin K antagonists,” suggested Blomstrom-Lundqvist.

Increased Bleeding is Main Issue With Newer Agents

Regardless of which agent is used, clinical practice and research has shifted focus to decreasing the risk of bleeding for patients on oral anticoagulants and antithrombotics. While the newer agents might be better than warfarin on several points, the more effective ability to prevent clotting also results in the unwanted consequence of increased bleeding. This sentiment was echoed multiple times by speakers at ACC.16. The most common bleeding complication with NOACs compared to warfarin is gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding.  The results of the Ruff meta-analysis favored warfarin over NOACs for rates of GI bleeds (whether results from dabigatran trials were included or not).

“Major bleeds, as well as minor bleeds, may be a problem because patients stop their treatments — not only their antithrombotic treatment, but also the ACE inhibitors, statins and all other life-saving therapies,” explained Freek Verheugt, M.D., FESC, FACC, FAHA, professor of cardiology, Heart-Lung Centre of the University Medical Centre of Nijmegen and chairman of the Department of Cardiology at Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, The Netherlands.

Evolution of the Anticoagulant Nomenclature 

The approval of dabigatran (Pradaxa) in 2010 lead to the creation of the term new oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This term was changed to novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) when rivaroxaban (Xarelto) came to the market in 2011. After apixaban (Eliquis) and edoxaban (Savaysa) were cleared, the name changed to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and is the term used by the International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Alternative names for these agents are target-specific oral anticoagulants (TSOACs) and non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs), the term used by the American College of Chest Physicians and the FDA. All of these acronyms refer to the same agents.

SOURCE

 

Warfarin Use May Not Bring Long-Term Stability for Atrial Fibrillation

Registry study finds INR values fluctuate over 18 months, even in patients considered “stable”

Read Full Post »


FDA Approval marks first presentation of bivalirudin in frozen, premixed, ready-to-use formulation

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Baxter Announces FDA Approval of Ready-to-Use Cardiovascular Medication Bivalirudin

Approval marks first presentation of bivalirudin in frozen, premixed, ready-to-use formulation

https://www.dicardiology.com/product/baxter-announces-fda-approval-ready-use-cardiovascular-medication-bivalirudin?eid=333021707&bid=1983307

Dosing and Uses

https://reference.medscape.com/drug/angiomax-angiox-bivalirudin-342137

 

Read Full Post »


Shaun Coughlin from UCSF Cardiovascular Research Center to cardio group for the Novartis Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, MA

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

The dean of the UCSF med school, Talmadge King, had this to say in his sendoff today:

Coughlin’s “research discoveries revealed a mechanism by which proteases regulate cellular behaviors including a key mechanism that controls blood platelet activation and clot formation. This work led to a new medical therapy for preventing heart attacks and strokes and has been honored by the American Heart Association’s Basic Science Award in 2003 and its Research Achievement Award in 2014. Among his numerous other awards are the Bristol-Myers Squibb Cardiovascular Research Award and the Distinguished Career Award from the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.”

SOURCE

https://endpts.com/top-ucsf-scientist-shaun-coughlin-joins-migration-to-big-pharma-leaping-to-novartis

Read Full Post »


Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Device for Prevention of Pulmonary Embolism and Thrombosis

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 7/18/2018

 

Original Investigation
Cardiology
July 13, 2018

Association of Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement for Venous Thromboembolic Disease and a Contraindication to Anticoagulation With 30-Day Mortality

JAMA Network Open. 2018;1(3):e180452. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0452
Key Points

Question  What is the association of inferior vena cava filter placement with 30-day mortality in patients with venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to anticoagulation?

Findings  In this cohort study, using 2 different statistical methods with adjustment for immortal time bias, inferior vena cava filter placement in patients with venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to anticoagulation was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality.

Meaning  Randomized clinical trials are needed to define the role of inferior vena cava filter placement in patients with venous thromboembolic disease and a contraindication to anticoagulation.

 

Abstract

Importance  Despite the absence of data from randomized clinical trials, professional societies recommend inferior vena cava (IVC) filters for patients with venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) and a contraindication to anticoagulation therapy. Prior observational studies of IVC filters have suggested a mortality benefit associated with IVC filter insertion but have often failed to adjust for immortal time bias, which is the time before IVC filter insertion, during which death can only occur in the control group.

Objective  To determine the association of IVC filter placement with 30-day mortality after adjustment for immortal time bias.

Design, Setting, and Participants  This comparative effectiveness, retrospective cohort study used a population-based sample of hospitalized patients with VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation using the State Inpatient Database and the State Emergency Department Database, part of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, from hospitals in California (January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2011), Florida (January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2013), and New York (January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2012). Data analysis was conducted from September 15, 2015, to March 14, 2018.

Exposure  Inferior vena cava filter placement.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were constructed with IVC filters as a time-dependent variable that adjusts for immortal time bias. The Cox model was further adjusted using the propensity score as an adjustment variable.

Results  Of 126 030 patients with VTE, 61 281 (48.6%) were male and the mean (SD) age was 66.9 (16.6) years. In this cohort, 45 771 (36.3%) were treated with an IVC filter, whereas 80 259 (63.7%) did not receive a filter. In the Cox model with IVC filter status analyzed as a time-dependent variable to account for immortal time bias, IVC filter placement was associated with a significantly increased hazard ratio of 30-day mortality (1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.22; P < .001). When the propensity score was included in the Cox model, IVC filter placement remained associated with an increased hazard ratio of 30-day mortality (1.18; 95% CI, 1.13-1.22; P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance  After adjustment for immortal time bias, IVC filter placement was associated with increased 30-day mortality in patients with VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation. Randomized clinical trials are needed to determine the efficacy of IVC filter placement in patients with VTE and a contraindication to anticoagulation.

 

Requiem for Liberalizing Indications for Vena Caval Filters?

Samuel Z. Goldhaber

Guidelines

However, it is premature to hammer nails into the coffin and to gather as a medical community for a requiem that celebrates no indication for liberalizing indications for placing an IVC filter. Instead, we need to shift the focus of the questions that we investigate and pour resources into further randomized and observational trials of IVC filter insertion in special highrisk populations.

There remain important groups of patients who may benefit from IVC filters with reduction in PE and PE-associated mortality (Table 2). In some cases, tantalizing data suggest that these populations warrant filters. In other cases, we lack data to guide us. Patients with massive PE—accompanied by cardiogenic shock requiring vasopressors to support blood pressure—are desperately ill. They are clinically unstable. An additional PE under these circumstances can be the fatal blow. Data from the National Inpatient Sample and the International Cooperative PE Registry suggest that filters in these patients may be lifesaving.

Patients with severe PE who undergo acute surgical pulmonary embolectomy are vulnerable to recurrent PE, especially during the early postoperative period where full anticoagulation cannot be immediately implemented. I have had personal experience managing this type of patient where the embolectomy is successful but the patient dies of recurrent PE.19

Table 1. Generally Accepted Consensus Recommendations for IVC Filter Insertion in Patients With VTE

  • Major bleeding on full-dose anticoagulation
  • Major contraindication to full-dose anticoagulation
  • New-onset acute PE (especially recurrent PE) despite well-documented fulldose anticoagulation for an existing VTE

IVC indicates inferior vena caval; PE, pulmonary embolism; and VTE, venous thromboembolism.

 

Table 2. Special Populations Where Benefits of IVC Filter Insertion May Outweigh Risks

  • Massive PE or high-risk submassive PE
  • Surgical pulmonary embolectomy
  • Cancer patients with VTE or at high risk of VTE with concomitant high risk of bleeding if anticoagulated
  • Surgical patients (especially during preoperative evaluation) at high risk of VTE with concomitant high risk of bleeding if anticoagulated

IVC indicates inferior vena caval; PE, pulmonary embolism; and VTE, venous thromboembolism.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.116.022730

References

1. Stein PD, Matta F, Hull RD. Increasing use of vena cava filters for prevention of pulmonary embolism. Am J Med. 2011;124:655–661. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.02.021.

2. Jia Z, Wu A, Tam M, Spain J, McKinney JM, Wang W. Caval penetration by inferior vena cava filters: a systematic literature review of clinical significance and management. Circulation. 2015;132:944–952. doi: 10.1161/ CIRCULATIONAHA.115.016468

3. Owens CA, Bui JT, Knuttinen MG, Gaba RC, Carrillo TC, Hoefling N, Layden-Almer JE. Intracardiac migration of inferior vena cava filters: review of published data. Chest. 2009;136:877–887. doi: 10.1378/ chest.09-0153.

4. Nicholson W, Nicholson WJ, Tolerico P, Taylor B, Solomon S, Schryver T, McCullum K, Goldberg H, Mills J, Schuler B, Shears L, Siddoway L, Agarwal N, Tuohy C. Prevalence of fracture and fragment embolization of Bard retrievable vena cava filters and clinical implications including cardiac perforation and tamponade. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1827–1831. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.316.

5. Angel LF, Tapson V, Galgon RE, Restrepo MI, Kaufman J. Systematic review of the use of retrievable inferior vena cava filters. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22:1522–1530.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2011.08.024.

19. Aklog L, Williams CS, Byrne JG, Goldhaber SZ. Acute pulmonary embolectomy: a contemporary approach. Circulation. 2002;105:1416–1419.

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the follwoing:

 

Xarelto (Rivaroxaban): Anticoagulant Therapy gains FDA New Indications and Risk Reduction for: (DVT) and (PE), while in use for Atrial fibrillation increase in Gastrointestinal (GI) Bleeding Reported

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2012/11/04/xarelto-rivaroxaban-anticoagulant-therapy-gains-fda-new-indications-and-risk-reduction-for-dvt-and-pe-while-in-use-for-atrial-fibrillation-increase-in-gastrointestinal-gi-bleeding-reported/

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE): Blood Clots in Leg and Lungs – No. 3 Cardiovascular Killer Globally – Is Leading Cause of Premature Death and Disability in Hospitals

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2014/10/13/venous-thromboembolism-vte-blood-clots-in-leg-and-lungs-no-3-cardiovascular-killer-globally-is-leading-cause-of-premature-death-and-disability-in-hospitals/

The Relation between Coagulation and Cancer affects Supportive Treatments

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2015/10/19/the-relation-between-coagulation-and-cancer-affects-supportive-treatments/

Read Full Post »


The presence of any Valvular Heart Disease (VHD) did not influence the comparison of Dabigatran [Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim] with Warfarin

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 10/22/2018

Dabigatran (Pradaxa) was no better than aspirin for prevention of recurrent stroke among patients with an embolic stroke of undetermined source in the RE-SPECT ESUS trial reported at the World Stroke Congress.

 

Pradaxa® (dabigatran etexilate)
Clinical experience of Pradaxa® equates to over 9 million patient-years in all licensed indications worldwide. Pradaxa® has been in the market for more than ten years and is approved in over 100 countries.15
Currently approved indications for Pradaxa® are:16,17
  • Prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and a risk factor for stroke
  • Primary prevention of venous thromboembolic events in patients undergoing elective total hip replacement surgery or total knee replacement surgery
  • Treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) and the prevention of recurrent DVT and recurrent PE in adults
Dabigatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor (DTI), was the first widely approved drug in a new generation of direct oral anticoagulants, available to target a high unmet medical need in the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic thromboembolic diseases.18,19,20
REFERENCES

SOURCE

https://www.boehringer-ingelheim.com/press-release/Results-from-two-Pradaxa-trials-to-be-presented-at-WSC

 

 

Event Rate and Outcome Risk, With vs Without Valvular Heart Disease

Outcome Valvular heart disease, event rate/y, % No valvular heart disease, event rate/y, % HR (95% CI)* P
Stroke, systemic embolic event 1.61 1.41 1.09 (0.88–1.33) 0.43
Major bleeding 4.36 2.84 1.32 (1.16–1.33) <0.001
Intracranial hemorrhage 0.51 0.41 1.20 (0.83–1.74) 0.32
All-cause mortality 4.45 3.67 1.09 (0.96–1.23) 0.18
*Adjusted using propensity scores

ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Valvular Heart Disease: The RE-LY Trial

Michael D. Ezekowitz, Rangadham Nagarakanti, Herbert Noack, Martina Brueckmann, Claire Litherland, Mark Jacobs, Andreas Clemens,Paul A. Reilly, Stuart J. Connolly, Salim Yusuf and Lars Wallentin

 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020950

 

Results—There were 3950 patients with any VHD:

  • 3101 had mitral regurgitation,
  • 1179 tricuspid regurgitation,
  • 817 aortic regurgitations,
  • 471 aortic stenosis and
  • 193 mild mitral stenosis.

At baseline patients with any VHD had more

  • heart failure,
  • coronary disease,
  • renal impairment and
  • persistent atrial fibrillation.

Patients with any VHD had higher rates of

  • major bleeds (HR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16-1.5)

but similar

  • stroke or systemic embolism (SEE) rates (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.88-1.33).

For D110 patients, major bleed rates were lower than warfarin (HR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56-0.95 with and HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71-0.99 without VHD) and

For D150 similar to warfarin in patients with (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.64-1.06) or without VHD (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83-1.15).

For D150 patients stroke/SEE rates were lower versus warfarin with (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.37-0.93) and without VHD (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.52-0.86) and similar to warfarin for D110 irrespective of presence of VHD (HR 0.97 CI 0.65-1.45 and 0.85 CI 0.70-1.10).

For intracranial bleeds and death rates for D150 and D110 were lower vs warfarin independent of presence of VHD.

Conclusions—The presence of any VHD did not influence the comparison of dabigatran with warfarin.

Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00262600.

SOURCES

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2016/08/05/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.020950

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/867482?nlid=108872_3866&src=WNL_mdplsfeat_160816_mscpedit_card&uac=93761AJ&spon=2&impID=1179558&faf=1

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »