The full study data from ANNEXA-4 included 249 adjudicated severe bleeds that could be evaluated for hemostatic efficacy. Although some patients did not demonstrate complete reversal of anti-Xa activity, 204 (82%; 95% CI, 77-87%) achieved "excellent" or "good" hemostasis. From a safety perspective, thrombotic events occurred in 34 patients (10%) during the 30-day follow-up period, 11 of which occurred during the first 5 days. Therapeutic anticoagulation had resumed in only 8 patients (2%) before a thrombotic event occurred.32 Andexanet is not currently being studied for reversal before invasive procedures.
Until andexanet alfa became available, PCCs served as a possible alternative for the management of life-threatening bleeding associated with anti-Xa treatment. The PCCs reverse abnormal laboratory parameters (prothrombin time and endogenous thrombin potential) in human volunteers after taking high doses of rivaroxaban and apixaban.33–35 This is not an intuitive approach in managing patients who do not have deficient levels of FXa or any of the other constituents of PCC. For this reason, treatment of anti-Xa–related bleeding with PCCs may be associated with a risk of postrepletion thromboembolic complications. Treatment with the combination of a specific reversal agent and PCCs can increase the risk of thrombotic complications; therefore, if a patient will be treated with andexanet alfa or idarucizumab, PCCs should only be administered using extreme caution while balancing the risk versus benefit ratio in the patient with severe bleeding.
APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT OF ORAL ANTICOAGULANT–ASSOCIATED BLEEDING
Management of DOAC-associated bleeding involves 4 steps: review, repair, reverse or replete, and resume (Fig. 1).36
Review requires one to stop the anticoagulation, determine the time of the last dose, review concomitant medications, evaluate the patient’s comorbidities, assess for cardiac decompensation, order baseline laboratory values, investigate the source of bleeding, maintain organ perfusion, and evaluate for transfusion. It is also important to remember that a conservative approach may be all that is needed because DOACs have short half-lives,37,38 so stopping therapy may be sufficient in patients with minor bleeds. Removal of the oral anticoagulant with gastric lavage, oral charcoal, or dialysis (for dabigatran) has been suggested as an additional step in the management of these patients.36 However, DOACs are rapidly absorbed after oral administration, and activated charcoal can make airway management extremely difficult should the patient become unstable and makes endoscopy nearly impossible in patients with GI bleeding. Therefore, the use of activated charcoal should be limited to and used with caution in acute overdose situations. Because dabigatran is dialyzable, hemodialysis has been suggested as part of the treatment strategy for dabigatran-related bleeding. However, now that idarucizumab is available to bind dabigatran, there is likely no longer a role for dialysis.
Repair involves assessing the need for endoscopy, interventional radiology, or surgery and performing the appropriate procedure to stop the bleeding. These definitive measures to control the bleeding source should be initiated in parallel with repletion or reversal in patients with severe bleeding.
Reverse includes use of reversal agents. The specific reversal agents, idarucizumab for dabigatran and andexanet alfa for apixaban and rivaroxaban, may be used for life-threatening bleeding, emergency surgery, and delayed clearance and bleeding. Replete includes use of PCCs or FFP for severe VKA-associated bleeding.
Resume involves making an informed clinical decision about when to resume anticoagulant therapy based on the nature of the bleeding episode and the patient’s risk for a thromboembolic event.
Specific management of bleeding associated with DOAC use varies according to the severity of bleeding.
“Minor bleeding” includes ecchymosis, most epistaxis, mucosal bleeding, hematuria, and menorrhagia. Management of minor DOAC-associated bleeding consists of temporarily discontinuing the DOAC, using local measures to control the source of bleeding, providing supportive care and maintaining hemodynamic status, and then consideration of restarting the DOAC when the bleeding has subsided and the risk for thrombosis exceeds the risk of bleeding.
“Moderate bleeding” includes most upper GI bleeding (UGIB) and lower GI bleeding (LGIB). The DOAC should be discontinued at least temporarily and the patient monitored closely. The underlying bleeding source should be investigated and definitively treated. Extended DOAC withdrawal should be considered, and utilization of low-dose parenteral anticoagulant for patients at particularly high risk of thrombosis may be necessary to allow healing. Transfusion therapy with packed red blood cells (PRBCs) for symptomatic anemia and monitoring of renal function are essential.
“Major bleeding” is defined by the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis as fatal bleeding, bleeding involving a critical area (brain, spinal cord, pericardial, intraocular, retroperitoneal, intraarticular, or intramuscular with compartment syndrome), any bleeding that results in a net drop of hemoglobin of ≥2 g/dL, or bleeding that requires the transfusion of ≥2 units of PRBCs.39 Major bleeding requires immediate withdrawal of any anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs. Aggressive clinical monitoring and transfusion of PRBCs in response to proven/anticipated severe anemia are required. Interventions to identify and treat the bleeding source include endoscopy, interventional radiology, and/or surgery. Life-saving therapies, including inotropes, ventilation, and ICU admission, should be considered as needed. Reversal or repletion should be administered as appropriate.
It should be noted that transfusing platelets in the face of thrombocytopenia is different from giving platelets to overcome antiplatelet agent effects. For patients taking antiplatelet agents, the decision to transfuse platelets will vary with the actual platelet antagonist being used and the site of the bleeding. Transfusion of pooled platelets can mitigate the effects of clopidogrel and prasugrel; however, it has no effect on platelet inhibition from ticagrelor and its active circulating metabolite. There is evidence that platelet transfusion in patients taking antiplatelet agents may cause harm, particularly in patients with GI bleeding and ICH.40,41 Platelet transfusions in GI bleeding patients on antiplatelet therapy are associated with increased mortality without improvement in recurrent GI bleeding, major adverse cardiovascular events, or length of hospital stay.41 Platelet transfusions have also been associated with worse outcomes in patients with ICH who have been taking antiplatelet therapy.40 Platelets are immune cells that release inflammatory markers, bioactive lipids, and cytokines. Transfusion may contribute to transfusion-related lung injury and also carries an increased risk of thrombosis due to platelet activation in stored product, possibly leading to recurrent events such as acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, and deep vein thrombosis.42 Therefore, platelet transfusion should be reserved for life-threatening bleeding.
An algorithm for the approach to management of patients with life-threatening oral anticoagulant–associated bleeding is presented in Figure 2.
PREPARATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF REVERSAL AGENTS AND ROLE OF THE PHARMACIST
Pharmacists can assist with appropriate patient selection and reversal agent administration. Specifically, they can aid in estimating the half-life of an anticoagulant, interpreting available coagulation tests, and/or identifying drug interactions that may prolong anticoagulant clearance. Finally, pharmacists can indirectly assist in patient selection and reversal administration by providing education for hospital staff about the importance of documenting vital data such as anticoagulant dose, body weight, and drug levels, and about specifics of drug administration, such as the fact that andexanet alfa and idarucizumab require special care to ensure that the entire dose is administered rather than having residual drug remaining in the tubing.
Anticoagulant reversal agents need to be available around-the-clock and should be available to the departments most likely to need them without undue delay. Assuring “timely” availability of reversal agents, however, requires the consideration of multiple logistical matters such as agent storage (idarucizumab and andexanet need to be refrigerated), admixture (ie, each vial needs 3-5 minutes for reconstitution), “proper reconstitution technique,” and transport requiring hand delivery. As a result, although many reversal agents provide rapid normalization of bleeding times once the agent is infused, the time from order to administration may be substantial at upwards of 30–45 minutes.
Anticoagulant reversal agents are expensive, and their cost-effectiveness has not been established. An analysis of the drug cost in the context of the overall cost of ED and intensive care and patient outcomes has not yet been performed. The high cost of many of these reversal agents may drive hospitals to create policies that mandate these agents be dispensed by the pharmacy. What impact pharmacy-based dispensing may have on the time to reversal agent administration is unclear, but it is worth noting that this was likely how many of the agents were handled during clinical trials as investigational drugs and how many time-sensitive agents, such as alteplase for acute ischemic stroke, are currently handled. If the decision is made to stock reversal agents outside of pharmacy, a mechanism to ensure the pharmacy is informed when they are utilized is of the utmost importance to assure that an uninterrupted supply is available for patients.
A final role for pharmacy is to assure any adverse events associated with reversal agents be reported to the manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration’s Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program.
INSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ANTICOAGULANT REVERSAL AGENTS
Because administration of specific anticoagulation reversal agents is costly and time consuming, institutions should develop their own predefined objective guidelines for determining which patients qualify for administration of a reversal agent. Ideally, these guidelines should be developed by a multidisciplinary team, and there should be at least one subject matter expert who can interpret the available data and make informed decisions for patients who may benefit from reversal but do not fit the institution’s standard guidelines. Although this model may work well at large academic institutions, it is not possible at all community hospitals. Therefore, each institution must work on their own process improvements to identify and mitigate barriers to proper and efficient administration of anticoagulation reversal agents. Furthermore, in each individual case, the decision to treat relies on the determination by the treating clinician that (1) there is life-threatening hemorrhage; (2) the hemorrhage is likely due to drug-related coagulopathy; and (3) the case is not futile.
Timely administration of the reversal agent requires that the processes involved in drug preparation and patient care occur in a parallel, rather than serial, fashion. For example, as soon as a patient is identified as being a possible candidate for DOAC reversal, the caregivers who will be involved, such as the pharmacy, nursing, ED, and critical care teams, should be notified so when the decision to treat is made, all are prepared for efficient execution of care. Involvement of a pharmacist on the clinical team can facilitate communication with central pharmacy and ensure prompt admixture and delivery of drug. As the drug is being prepared, the pharmacist can verify proper administration by double checking the patient’s DOAC dose, weight, and CrCl, and the medical team can begin to gather equipment and prepare the patient for control of the bleeding source. Finally, it should be noted that the time to obtain the drug from central pharmacy may be prohibitive in some cases, such as with pericardial tamponade, in which the decision to take the patient to the operating room (OR) must be made very quickly.
PREHOSPITAL MANAGEMENT OF THE ANTICOAGULATED PATIENT WITH SEVERE BLEEDING
Hemorrhage control is a key life-saving intervention expected of every level of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers, and identification of life-threatening bleeding is a component of the prehospital “primary survey.”43 This focus is especially relevant in trauma, where almost half of trauma-related prehospital deaths are due to hemorrhage,44 and transfusion delays as short as 10 minutes are associated with increased mortality.45 Rapid reversal of anticoagulation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients decreases ICH growth, which may improve outcomes.46 Life-threatening nontraumatic hemorrhage is also common, with spontaneous ICH and GI bleeding being most prevalent.47–50 Almost 50% of EMS calls are for older adults51 and the use of anticoagulants in older adults with head trauma is common.52 As the population ages and the use of FXa inhibitors and other anticoagulants increases, prehospital treatments for hemorrhage control must evolve to meet patient needs.
Current Prehospital Hemorrhage Control
Most external bleeding is adequately controlled with basic maneuvers, including simple bandages and direct pressure. Bandages impregnated with hemostatic agents offer advantages over simple gauze, especially in coagulopathic patients.53 Tourniquets, applied by the lay public or trained prehospital personnel, are effective in controlling significant extremity bleeding with few complications and significantly improved mortality.54,55
Civilian use of tranexamic acid (TXA) has increased since publication of the Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage (CRASH-2) study results.56 Very early TXA use in severely injured patients improves coagulopathy, decreases downstream blood product usage, and improves mortality.57,58 The time-dependent benefit has pushed TXA into prehospital formularies but also limits the population that qualifies for this therapy.59 As an antifibrinolytic, TXA is most useful in trauma-induced coagulopathy due to hyperfibrinolysis; the effectiveness of TXA in reversing FXa or VKA anticoagulation is less certain. There has been recent evidence that TXA may increase mortality if administered indiscriminately to all hemorrhaging patients.60 Waiting to administer TXA at the hospital where the presence of thrombolysis can be confirmed before administration of the drug may be prudent.
Blood product transfusion offers time-dependent mortality benefits, where even a 10-minute delay is associated with increased mortality.45 Because of the high-incidence of trauma-induced coagulopathy61 caused by hyperfibrinolysis,62 a “plasma-first” strategy is now being more widely used when plasma is available. Prehospital use of plasma improves short- and long-term survival.63
Increased availability of coagulation factor concentrates has created an attractive option for bleeding patients known to be on anticoagulant medications or with trauma-induced coagulopathy. European case reports have shown efficacy when administered before hospital arrival, with improved access to this therapy for patients served by rural hospitals.64,65 A single-center trial that compared the efficacy of first-line therapy using FFP versus coagulation factor concentrates for the reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathy was stopped early because the FFP group had significantly increased risk of rescue therapy and massive transfusion.66
Published experience and evidence of prehospital treatment of nontraumatic hemorrhage are sparse and primarily limited to case reports and single-institution experiences. Blood and plasma transfusion are used most often for critical GI bleeding, with improvements in hemodynamics and demonstrated reversal of coagulopathy.48–50 Mobile stroke units have been able to reverse anticoagulation before administration of tissue plasminogen activator67 or to treat ICH.47
Barriers to Prehospital Hemorrhage Control
Several barriers prevent advancement in prehospital hemorrhage control options. Although the scope of practice varies among states, a prehospital provider’s education is the most limiting factor. Basic emergency medical technicians are primarily limited to the fundamental techniques of bandages and tourniquets. Paramedics, with roughly 1000 additional hours of initial training, can obtain vascular access and administer a wide variety of medications from a locally determined pharmacopeia. However, even today, large parts of the United States do not have access to paramedic-level care. Even where trained providers are available, operational barriers impact treatment options. Use of plasma may be evidence based, but the choice of plasma source, plasma preparation, and logistics including stock management requires consideration.68 Not all emergency vehicles have temperature-controlled storage for medications or blood products, and agencies distant from trauma centers may not have ready access to a blood bank. Freeze-dried or lyophilized plasma may extend access in the future but are not current options.
Recognition of external traumatic bleeding and some nontraumatic hemorrhage, such as GI hemorrhage, is straightforward and only requires a physical examination. Widespread availability of advanced diagnostics, such as ultrasound or mobile computed tomography, is not realistic, limiting detection of other types of life-threatening hemorrhage. Prehospital identification of patients taking anticoagulant medications, especially DOACs, is poor,52 and prehospital point-of-care testing of coagulation profiles is not widespread.
Presuming technological and educational advancements allow better prehospital recognition of hemorrhage in anticoagulated patients, the adoption rate of potential therapies will be driven by cost. Prehospital emergency medical care is primarily reimbursed at a fixed rate, with minor adjustments for patient acuity and geographic region. Care episodes that do not result in patient transportation are not reimbursed. Unlike hospitals, EMS agencies generally cannot itemize or separately bill for medications or procedures. Thus, effective treatments may not be economically feasible.
EMERGENCY EVALUATION AND TREATMENT OF THE ANTICOAGULATED PATIENT WITH SEVERE BLEEDING
Emergency Medicine Perspective on the Trauma Patient
Injured patients who present to EDs and are taking oral anticoagulants account for 4% of all trauma patients. This subset of patients tends to be older, has more comorbidities, and has higher mortality than those not on anticoagulants. The structured approach to the evaluation of a traumatized patient who is taking an oral anticoagulant begins with the assessment of hemodynamic stability and the location of the hemorrhage.69,70 Control of the hemorrhage source using direct manual compression, tourniquet application, intravascular embolization, or surgical intervention should be attempted. Intravenous administration of vitamin K 5–10 mg should be given to those patients on VKAs. Supportive care with the administration of blood products, either whole blood or PRBCs, should proceed according to institutional policy and patient stability. Oral anticoagulants should clearly be stopped while a patient is being resuscitated, and consideration toward reversal and/or factor repletion should proceed in trauma patients with major or critical site hemorrhage. In mild or moderate bleeding, source control may be sufficient for hemostasis and obviates the need for factor replacement or reversal.
For patients taking VKAs who are compliant as evidenced by an elevated INR, 4FPCCs 25–50 U/kg should be given to replete key proteins in the coagulation cascade. FFP may be useful in factor repletion and plasma expansion in this scenario with careful attention to volume status and left ventricular function. For patients taking FXa inhibitors or dabigatran, the specific reversal agent should be administered if available. Other factors contributing to the decision to give specific reversal agents to a trauma patient with major bleeding are patient comorbidities. Uremia, chronic liver disease, thrombocytopenia, and the use of antiplatelet agents, including aspirin and PG2Y12 inhibitors such as clopidogrel and prasugrel, contribute to coagulopathy. In such cases, a more aggressive resuscitation and reversal strategy may include platelet administration, with the caveats mentioned previously. It is noteworthy to consider that treatment with factor replacement and reversal therapy carries significant expense, exposes the patient to their baseline or even increased risk of thromboembolism, and is not definitive therapy if the source of the hemorrhage is left unsecured.
TBI accounts for 2.5 million ED visits, 282,000 hospitalizations, and 56,000 deaths annually in the United States.71 The increased use of oral anticoagulants among older adults has led to an increased number of patients presenting to ED with suspected TBI.72 These patients may seem well and present with low mechanisms of injury, such as ground level falls, yet still have traumatic ICH that may require neurosurgical intervention.73,74 Efforts to develop clinical decision rules to identify a subpopulation of this group that is at low risk of injury, such that no neuroimaging is required, have met with limited success. Most patients with a suspected TBI who are taking anticoagulants should undergo neuroimaging.72 Delayed traumatic ICH, defined as blunt head injury with initially normal neuroimaging followed by interval development of ICH on repeat imaging, has been reported.75 The incidence of delayed traumatic ICH is unknown, although a recent retrospective review found that among patients taking DOACs who were at risk for traumatic ICH but had a negative brain computerized tomography (CT) on admission (n = 249), the incidence of delayed ICH was 0.8%.76 Evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians in establishing protocols for observation and repeat neuroimaging in TBI patients taking anticoagulants is limited.77,78 Some studies suggest that the subset of patients taking DOACs who have blunt traumatic ICH have lower mortality than those taking VKAs.79
ICHs, consisting of TBI, nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhages (SAHs), and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhages, are neurologic emergencies that can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Although these 3 broad categories of ICH are managed somewhat differently, almost all of them require immediate reversal of anticoagulation in addition to initial resuscitation that includes hemodynamic management, airway stabilization as needed, a neurologic examination, and a head CT. Patients who are on anticoagulants and sustain an ICH have a higher risk of death and hematoma expansion compared to those who are not anticoagulated, making anticoagulation reversal an important component of care for these patients. Rapid reversal of anticoagulation is usually necessary for even small, relatively asymptomatic hemorrhages to prevent hemorrhage expansion and to allow for completion of neurosurgical procedures or surgeries when indicated. Unlike patients with GI or retroperitoneal bleeding, those with isolated ICH do not require significant volume resuscitation, and even small increases in the amount of hemorrhage may lead to increased disability or mortality.
Prompt and aggressive anticoagulation reversal is important for long-term outcomes in patients with anticoagulant-related ICH. Time spent waiting on subspecialty consultation, transfer to another facility, or waiting on reversal after admission can impact long-term morbidity and mortality. A retrospective study of patients with intracerebral hemorrhage who were taking oral anticoagulants demonstrated that those who achieved a combination of INR reversal to <1.3 and systolic blood pressure reduction to <160 mm Hg within 4 hours had a significantly lower rate of hematoma enlargement (18.1% vs. 44.2%).80
Based on years of clinical practice and research, there are more data to support anticoagulation reversal practices in the setting of VKAs when compared with newer oral anticoagulants, particularly in the care of patients with ICH.81 Patients who experience an intracerebral hemorrhage while taking warfarin have a higher mortality than those who are not anticoagulated.82,83 The mainstays of reversal include FFP or PCCs combined with vitamin K. The 2015 American Heart Association guidelines for intracerebral hemorrhage state that “PCCs may have fewer complications and correct the INR more rapidly than FFP and might be considered over FFP (Class IIb, Level of Evidence B).”84 Based on available evidence, it is reasonable to assume that nearly all ICHs in the setting of VKA therapy represent a life threat and PCCs should be used for reversal. One criticism of PCC is that there has not been a large randomized controlled trial comparing it to FFP in the setting of ICHs. Smaller studies do support that PCCs reverse coagulopathy, defined as elevated INR, in patients with VKA-associated anticoagulation faster than FFP in the setting of both extracranial and intracranial bleeding.85
In a prospective observational study that compared treatment with PCCs and FFP in the setting of VKA-associated ICH, patients who received PCCs had a lower risk of death or severe disability at 3 months (P = 0.039) when compared with FFP alone. A randomized controlled trial comparing FFP to PCCs in the setting of VKA-associated ICH suggested that PCCs reversed INR faster than FFP;4 however, the trial was stopped early because of safety concerns due to greater hematoma expansion in the FFP group. Regardless of whether FFP or PCCs are used in the acute setting, patients also need to receive intravenous vitamin K to allow for the endogenous production of clotting factors.
ICHs comprise only 13% of all major bleeds in all DOAC-treated patients.86 Of all DOAC bleeding complications, ICHs have the highest mortality at 45%.87 The risk of ICH is significantly lower in patients anticoagulated with a DOAC than with warfarin.18 In the RE-VERSE AD study, in which idarucizumab was evaluated for dabigatran reversal, 98 (32.3%) of the patients presented with ICH, including intracerebral hemorrhage, SAH, and subdural hematoma (SDH). The 30-day mortality rate was 16.4% among patients with ICH, which was lower than previously described rates of warfarin-associated ICH.30
The ANNEXA-4 full study report of andexanet alfa enrolled 171 patients (67% of total) with ICH.32 These constituted a mixture of intracerebral hemorrhage, SAH, and SDH, similar to the phase 3 idarucizumab study. The study population overall had a more favorable neurologic presentation at baseline, with an average presenting Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 14. Patients with a GCS of <7 were excluded. Good or excellent hemostasis (as measured by the size of the hematoma) was achieved in 80% of patients.
For anticoagulated patients with ICH, several issues complicate the decision to treat with a specific reversal agent. First, the treating physician should strongly consider the goals of care. With the limited accuracy of ultra-early prognosis, patients with preinjury functional independence, even with major traumatic ICH, should be treated aggressively for the first 24–48 hours to try to preserve the opportunity for recovery. Similarly, an anticoagulated patient with a rim SDH and a GCS of 15 may be an excellent target for intervention to preserve their neurologic status. Contrary to historical practice, a decline in neurologic examination during serial examinations should not be the requirement for a decision to treat because clinical changes likely represent cerebral compression from progression of intracranial pathology. Although patients with GCS <7 were excluded from treatment in the ANNEXA trial, there is no clear reason to exclude patients with low GCS from treatment with andexanet alfa. Currently, there are no data on the natural progression of different types of ICH in patients taking DOACs, so risk stratification as a guide to decision-making is not reliable. Despite recommendations for early aggressive care, there are patients with a poor baseline quality of life with persistent neurologic deficits who may not receive meaningful benefit from intervention with a reversal agent. Finally, there are currently no data regarding redosing or extended infusion of andexanet alfa in patients with ICH; therefore, monitoring of TEG and repeating an anti-Xa level after initial dosing may be helpful, especially in patients with renal insufficiency.
Abdominal and Chest Trauma
The evaluation and resuscitation of a patient with blunt thoracoabdominal trauma in the setting of anticoagulation are similar to that of a nonanticoagulated patient in that evaluation of the site and severity of hemorrhage are paramount. Initial concern that patients taking DOACs would have higher mortality than those taking VKAs in the setting of severe blunt traumatic injury, defined as an injury severity score >15, was not supported in recently published registry data. After excluding patients with severe head injuries, the authors found significantly lower mortality in the DOAC group versus the warfarin group (8.3% vs. 29.5%, respectively; P < 0.015). No difference in mean injury severity score, hospital or ICU length of stay, or complications was noted. Units of blood product transfused per patient were lower in the DOAC group (2.8 ± 1.8 units per patient in the DOAC group vs. 6.7 ± 6.4 units per patient in the warfarin group; P = 0.001).88 Initial imaging evaluation with Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma followed by cross-sectional imaging to identify the site and severity of bleeding is recommended. Repeat evaluation and observation as an inpatient or in a clinical decision or observation unit are prudent for patients for whom there is concern for bleeding in the setting of anticoagulation.
In anticoagulated patients, GI bleeding is a common clinical problem that results in significant morbidity and cost. By some estimates, it accounts for up to 2% of hospital admissions with a mortality rate of 5%. Risk factors for DOAC-related GI bleeding include concomitant use of ulcerogenic agents (NSAIDs), older age, renal impairment, previous Helicobacter pylori infection, and history of GI bleed.89 Unlike warfarin, aspirin, and NSAIDs where UGIB predominates, LGIB accounted for 53% of GI bleeding with dabigatran. The most frequent sources of anticoagulant-associated GI bleeding are peptic ulcer disease for UGIB and colonic diverticula for LGIB.89
Evaluation of GI Bleeding
Determination of the location of the GI bleed is important in patients who are anticoagulated in terms of how aggressively and urgently one must consider discontinuation of the anticoagulant and/or correction of the coagulopathic state, especially since LGIB stops spontaneously in 80%–85% of patients.90 Factors predictive of an upper GI source include a patient-reported history of melena, melanotic stools on examination, blood or coffee-ground emesis during nasogastric (NG) lavage, and blood urea nitrogen-to-serum Cr ratio >30. Up to 60% of patients with a history of UGIB are bleeding from the same lesion as a previous event91; therefore, history can help identify bleeding sources. Hematochezia suggests a lower GI source but can be seen in patients with massive UGIB or small bowel bleeding.
Whether all patients with suspected acute GI bleeding require NG tube placement and lavage remains controversial. Studies have failed to demonstrate a reduction in mortality, hospital length of stay, need for surgery, or transfusion requirement. However, NG tube lavage is associated with shorter time to GI endoscopy and assists in ruling out an upper GI source of bleeding. In anticoagulated patients, this additional information may be helpful in deciding whether reversal and push for urgent endoscopy are appropriate when UGIB is suspected.92
Frank red blood during NG lavage, tachycardia, orthostatic dizziness, cold/clammy extremities, and hemoglobin <8 g/dL suggest severe bleeding, as do confusion, angina, and palpitations. Serious hypovolemia is signaled by resting tachycardia (<15% blood volume loss), orthostatic hypotension (15%–40% volume loss), and supine hypotension (≥40% blood loss). Severe abdominal pain, rebound, and involuntary guarding raise one’s concern for perforation.
General emergency management includes triaging to an appropriate level of care, obtaining adequate intravenous access, and supportive measures. Nonmajor GI bleeding involves cessation of drug and delayed endoscopic management. If the bleeding is limited or slow, replacing lost fluid and blood products, if necessary, may be the best course of action while one waits for the anticoagulant effect to abate.12 Acute management of serious bleeding focuses on aggressive resuscitation, strategic drug reversal, and prompt endoscopy to control the bleeding source.93 Besides fluid and blood replacement, intermediate steps include the use of antifibrinolytic agents (TXA and desmopressin). The role of nonspecific reversal agents such as PCCs remains controversial. One study suggests that the use of PCC is associated with a 7% risk of thromboembolism.12
Patients with hypovolemia and active bleeding require red cell transfusion, even with an apparently normal hemoglobin at the onset. This is especially true if the patient remains hemodynamically unstable despite appropriate fluid resuscitation. Many guidelines recommend transfusion if hemoglobin falls below 9 g/dL; a more restrictive approach, however, using a hemoglobin of <7 g/dL has been shown to be safe with improved mortality. Given the risk of continued bleeding in anticoagulated individuals, a more robust transfusion threshold is appropriate.94 Equally important, one should avoid over transfusing patients with suspected variceal bleeding because this can precipitate worsening hemorrhage. Thrombocytopenia should be corrected when platelets fall below 50,000/μL. Because PRBCs do not contain coagulation factors, giving FFP for every 1–2 units of packed cells as part of a massive transfusion protocol is currently the standard of care for massively bleeding patients.89
With life-threatening bleeding in hemodynamically unstable patients, complete reversal is appropriate while seeking emergent endoscopy. Intervention with antifibrinolytic agents, nonspecific repletion agents (PCCs), and specific reversal agents such as idarucizumab and andexanet alfa is warranted. This occurs more often with UGIB since a large percentage of LGIB stops spontaneously.94
Ancillary Therapeutic and Diagnostic Intervention
Acid suppression is paramount with UGIB. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) should be started at presentation. Whereas pre-endoscopy histamine receptor antagonists and acid suppressive therapy have not been shown to significantly lower the rate of ulcer rebleeding, high-dose antisecretory therapy with intravenous PPI infusion significantly reduces the rate of rebleeding compared to standard treatment in patients with bleeding ulcers. The PPIs also decrease length of stay, rebleeding rate, and need for blood transfusion postendoscopic intervention.95 Radiographic imaging such as CT scan, angiography, and radionuclide studies are sensitive but often less accurate for localizing the bleeding site. These studies are considered secondary to endoscopy, which has both diagnostic and therapeutic potential. Use of newer endoscopy techniques allows successful endoscopic management even in the setting of brisk bleeding.
Mucosal bleeding, such as epistaxis and postdental extraction, can be quite unnerving to the patient and frustrating for the physician, but rarely results in substantial morbidity or mortality. Bleeding can be more impressive, recurrent, and difficult to manage in patients with impaired hemostasis due to treatment with antiplatelet or anticoagulation medications.96 For mucosal bleeding, the risk-to-benefit ratio for systemic anticoagulation reversal or factor replenishment versus the underlying condition warranting anticoagulation would argue for local hemorrhage control as the first-line treatment. There is a limited base of quality evidence to inform management strategies.
Epistaxis can be characterized as anterior or posterior, with most nosebleeds originating from Kisselbach's plexus in the anterior nasal septum where they are easily controlled. Posterior nosebleeds, although infrequent, do have a greater likelihood of blood loss, difficulty in achieving hemostasis, and need for hospitalization and potential surgical intervention.
Direct pressure is the cornerstone of local bleeding control. For most nosebleeds, simply pinching and holding the nasal alae will, within a few minutes, prove sufficient for hemostasis. Failing that measure, nasal tampons allow for pressure to be directly applied against the offending vessel. Various devices are commonly available in the ED, including fluid-expandable sponge nasal tampons and inflatable nasal balloons. There has been no demonstrated advantage of one over the other although patient comfort has been reported to be improved with the inflatable nasal balloons.97 Posterior epistaxis can be controlled via nasal tampon deployment as well although a device of sufficient length is required. The classical solution to posterior epistaxis in the ED that is refractory to tampon placement is the use of a Foley style urinary balloon catheter, which is advanced in a similar fashion to a NG tube, inflated, and then pulled back into the nasal passages until lodging, which provides tamponade of the bleeding. Bilateral posterior packing may be required to achieve control. Despite this approach, bleeding may persist and surgical or interventional radiology consultation may be required for arterial ligation or embolization.
In addition to mechanical compression, there are pharmacologic adjuncts available in the form of topical vasoconstrictors or TXA. Commonly used topical vasoconstrictors include cocaine, phenylephrine, epinephrine, and oxymetazoline. TXA is a fibrin stabilizer that enhances hemostasis by blocking the activity of plasminogen.98 Recently, the use of topical TXA has been described in the setting of epistaxis using an atomizer, nebulizer, or saturating a nasal tampon with the injectable preparation (100 mg/mL solution).99–102 The use of chemical cautery allows for the obliteration of a bleeding vessel in the anterior septum, as long as the vessel can be visualized and the field is dry. Silver nitrate is typically used, with the caveat that it is applied only for a few seconds and not on both sides of the septum. In the anticoagulated patient, a prolonged period of observation before discharge from the ED may be warranted because the rebleed rate is higher in anticoagulated patients.96
The randomized controlled trial literature for oral bleeding (typically postdental extraction) in the ED is nonexistent at this time, with no available evidence in the anticoagulated patient cohort.103 The principles for controlling postextraction bleeding in the anticoagulated patient are similar to epistaxis—direct pressure remains critical. Rarely, arterial bleeding may require direct ligature with a figure-of-eight or purse-string stitch.
Hemostatic control of an extraction site can be accomplished by having the patient bite down on a small gauze roll after the preexisting clot and debris have been gently irrigated away. Direct pressure may be facilitated with local injection of lidocaine with epinephrine into the surrounding gingiva, both for vasoconstriction and pain relief from direct pressure onto a recent oral surgery site. Cohort data suggest an association with improved hemostasis when the gauze used for compression is saturated with TXA.104 Routine postoperative topical TXA mouthwash is associated with decreased oral bleeding in patients on VKAs such as warfarin; however, this regimen has not been prospectively studied in the setting of acute bleeding.105 Packing the socket with surgical gelatin foam may be an option for hemostasis, especially if TXA is not available.
CRITICAL CARE MANAGEMENT OF THE ANTICOAGULATED PATIENT WITH SEVERE BLEEDING
Management of the Anticoagulated Patient in the Perioperative Setting
Patients who are severely injured rapidly develop a “coagulopathy of trauma” due to significant tissue damage.106 The current standard of care is to treat this coagulopathy by minimizing infusion of crystalloid and transfusing PRBCs and plasma (FFP) in a 1:1 ratio.107 Obtaining immediate hemorrhage control is critical to prevent the “lethal triad of trauma”: worsening coagulopathy, acidosis, and hypothermia. Hemorrhage control may involve use of tourniquets,108 aortic balloon occlusion,109 embolotherapy, or operative exploration. However, such a strategy does not address patients who have pharmacologic inhibition of the coagulation system in addition to the inherent coagulopathy of trauma. Such patients frequently require specific reversal agents to restore their innate clotting ability and decrease risk of fatal exsanguination related to the operation.
The PCCs have been shown to very rapidly and effectively reverse coagulopathy due to VKAs, most commonly warfarin, in patients who require emergency surgery.110,111 More recently, they have also been shown to improve time to correction of coagulopathy and to decrease the need for blood product transfusion when given in addition to a 1:1 transfusion strategy in hemorrhaging trauma patients.112 Although PCCs are costly, they are less likely than plasma to result in transfusion-associated circulatory overload and are associated with a lower overall transfusion need, both of which can offset the cost of the drug. Moreover, PCCs are now commonly available in most hospitals, making their use in the perioperative setting practical and feasible. However, PCCs should not be used alone for treatment of the exsanguinating patient because such patients require ongoing volume repletion, which is best carried out using plasma to replete ongoing consumption of coagulation factors and minimize the risk of hemodilution of these factors associated with crystalloid infusion.
Whereas treatment of bleeding patients who have coagulopathy due to the presence of warfarin is somewhat straightforward, management of severely injured bleeding patients who are taking DOACs is challenging. First, as previously mentioned, there is no readily available laboratory test that can measure for the presence or activity level of these agents in the serum. As such, the surgeon/intensivist must consider the severity of the bleed, time since the patient last ingested a dose of the drug, and the pharmacokinetics of the drug in the setting of the patient’s renal and liver function when determining whether or not to administer a reversal agent. Moreover, specific reversal agents for DOACs, especially andexanet alfa, are expensive. Waiting to evaluate whether the amount of hemorrhage is increasing may be a reasonable option in many instances, unless the patient presents in extremis where there is no physiologic reserve left or the patient has a significant hemorrhage in a closed space, such as the cranium. Also, the physician may be able to use secondary signs, such as the presence of blood clots on the stretcher or in the operative field, to determine coagulation status and inform the decision on use of DOAC-specific reversal agents. Ultimately, the surgeon must make a subjective assessment of the risk-to-benefit ratio regarding the patient’s likely anticoagulation status, the urgency of the surgery, and the ability to perform intraoperative reversal if necessary. Finally, the surgeon/intensivist should consider the duration of the reversal agent to determine the likelihood of rebound coagulopathy. Rebound coagulopathy may occur with andexanet alfa due to its short half-life and weak covalent bond to the FXa inhibitor, but it is much less likely to occur with idarucizumab, which irreversibly binds dabigatran.30
After operation, various endpoints should be used to determine coagulation ability. In addition to conventional coagulation parameters, TEG can be used to determine both clotting ability and clot stability (degree of fibrinolysis),113 but this modality is not predictive of the presence of DOACs. In addition to monitoring hemoglobin and lactic acid/base deficit levels, the amount and character of output from surgically placed drains can be used to assess for ongoing coagulopathy and possible need for (additional) doses of reversal agents.
The decision to resume anticoagulation postoperatively or after severe injury is challenging, and there are no set standards to follow. Delay to resumption of anticoagulation is associated with the risk of thromboembolic or occlusive disease whereas early resumption is associated with recurrent hemorrhage. Although one may be able to restart anticoagulation earlier in patients who have definitive control of hemorrhage, such as postsplenectomy, delay to resumption of anticoagulation may be necessary in patients in whom inherent clotting ability is needed for days to weeks to prevent worsening injury, such as with brain trauma.
Evaluation and Treatment of Postprocedural Bleeding in the Anticoagulated Cardiac Patient
Anticoagulation During Cardiovascular Procedures
The introduction of a nonbiologic material or surface into the circulation represents a nidus for thrombus formation. This teleological response to “non-self” is the result of triggering the contact activation pathway, beginning with factor XIIa, factor XIa, prekallikrein, and high molecular weight kininogen. The insertion of catheters and stents and the performance of tissue ablation for the purpose of disrupting reentry circuits in AF and atrial flutter stimulate tissue factor–based coagulation.
The underlying mechanisms of thrombus formation, coupled with the risk for bleeding with anticoagulant therapy in an acute setting, have led to the development and wide-scale use of anticoagulants that have a rapid onset of action and short plasma half-life. The most commonly employed agent is unfractionated heparin (UFH); however, other parenteral anticoagulants such as bivalirudin, lepirudin, enoxaparin, and argatroban may also be used, particularly for percutaneous coronary intervention and in cases where UFH is contraindicated, such as in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.
DOACs, although increasingly used worldwide, are not a common first-line consideration in cardiovascular procedures; however, patients receiving DOACs who undergo pacemaker or internal cardioverter–defibrillator placement or direct-current cardioversion are increasingly kept on treatment. Accordingly, a keen understanding of these agents and their pharmacological profiles is an absolute requirement for clinicians in case bleeding complications occur.
Bleeding Complications During Cardiovascular Procedures
Coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention are among the most common diagnostic procedures and interventions, respectively, in patients with cardiovascular disease. The complications associated with coronary angiography are influenced by a variety of factors, including access site, sex, age, body weight, urgency of the procedure, and associated comorbidities. The most common complication is bleeding as a result of vascular trauma. This is particularly common among women of low body weight with small caliber peripheral vessels (femoral artery access site).114 In response to observed trends, there has been increasing use of the radial artery for access and use of ultrasound-guided arterial puncture (in the femoral and radial arteries).115 In the Minimizing Adverse hemorrhagic events by TransRadial access site and systemic Implementation of angioX (MATRIX) study, 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management were randomly assigned to either radial or femoral access. The rates of major bleeding were significantly lower with the radial as compared with the femoral approach (relative risk, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.53–0.67).116
Close attention to the dosing of anticoagulants has also reduced the likelihood of periprocedural bleeding localized to the access site or the retroperitoneal space. Bleeding at a distance, including the GI tract, urinary tract, or central nervous system, is less common but certainly can occur. In addition, the coronary arteries themselves may bleed if perforation occurs. Although coronary arterial perforation is not a common event (0.2% of all cases), it causes cardiac tamponade in up to 30% of patients, a need for emergent surgery in 8%–10% of patients, and death in up to 8% of patients in whom it occurs.117
Hospitalized patients with cardiovascular disease may undergo a variety of procedures, including pacemaker or internal cardioverter–defibrillator placement, left ventricular assist device insertion, radiofrequency ablation, and peripheral arterial angioplasty, that can be associated with bleeding complications. As mentioned previously, UFH represents the most commonly used parenteral anticoagulant; however, DOACs are rapidly entering the picture because many electrophysiologists feel increasingly comfortable continuing these agents during procedures, at times with UFH given during the procedure to minimize the risk of thrombosis and thromboembolism. This approach will likely become more prevalent, and clinicians must take all anticoagulants and antithrombotic agents into consideration should serious bleeding ensue.
Management of Bleeding Complications
The approach to managing bleeding complications in an anticoagulated patient should be stepwise, drug(s)-specific, and tailored to the site of bleeding and overall clinical status of the patient. An assessment of risk and benefit for stopping or reversing anticoagulation must be undertaken and, whenever possible, patient and family values and preferences must be factored into the equation. The initial treatment of anticoagulant-related bleeding is supportive with a focus on maintaining blood pressure and perfusion pressure, controlling the site of bleeding through either manual means when the site is readily accessible, vascular embolization or surgical intervention, blood product administration, and for serious, life-threatening or uncontrollable bleeding, replacement or reversal agents. Minor bleeding can often be addressed by employing supportive means or, in the case of access site bleeding, local measures including manual or device compression. Moderate bleeding may require monitoring in a step–down unit or its equivalent and catheter-based (embolization, cauterization, clipping) or minor surgical (vascular repair) intervention. Life-threatening bleeding events require immediate discontinuation of the anticoagulant, reversal of its anticoagulant effects, and specific interventions. UFH can be readily reversed with protamine following a standard institution-based protocol, which is recommended for all hospitals performing invasive cardiac procedures. There are potential complications associated with this agent that include myocardial suppression, hypotension, and paradoxical anticoagulation if overdosed and, rarely, anaphylactic shock. Supportive measures with volume expansion and PRBCs may also be required. Careful consideration of the potential impact of concomitant platelet antagonists and the possibility of transfusion of pooled platelets is essential. In patients receiving warfarin, 4FPCCs and vitamin K are recommended. If a patient is receiving a DOAC,118 a targeted approach that incorporates the use of specific reversal agents should be taken in addition to supportive care.
Management of the Bleeding Patient in the Cardiovascular Critical Care Unit After Surgery/Cardiopulmonary Bypass and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Bleeding in the cardiac surgical patient
In clinical practice, the management of bleeding patients in the cardiovascular critical care unit can be divided into those with medical bleeding and those with surgical bleeding. By far the most straightforward decision to treat is for those patients with surgical bleeding. When bleeding crosses certain accepted thresholds in the postoperative period, return to the OR for exploration and surgical control is mandatory. Massive bleeding has been defined differently at different times, but current use of the hemostasis score identifies massive bleeding as operative field blood loss exceeding 600 mL/h, chest tube output of >300 mL/h, or 150 mL/h for 2 hours. The Fresh Frozen Plasma in Cardiac Surgery: Descriptive and Prognostic Study (PLASMACARD) identified excessive postoperative bleeding as >1.5 mL/kg/h for ≥3 hours as requiring re-exploration in the OR.119
Bleeding vessels, pericardial bleeding, and valvular leakage must be fixed mechanically; however, control of postoperative “surgical bleeding” also relies on the correction of coagulopathy to allow for meticulous control of bleeding in the surgical field. Often patients are taken back to the OR for exploration for bleeding and no clear source is identified, but instead serosal oozing and leakage are noted. Controversy exists as to whether bleeding can be controlled via medical means, and multiple research studies have explored the use of antifibrinolytic therapies and procoagulants administered locally in the OR or systemically in an attempt to obviate the need to return to the OR.
The agents TXA, recombinant factor VIIa, protamine, FFP, and PCCs have all been studied in the perioperative setting. Recently, >3400 patients were included in a propensity-matched observational study investigating the effectiveness of PCCs versus FFP for coagulopathy treatment as first-line therapy in patients who were bleeding after cardiac surgery.120 Although the authors found a reduction in the need for red blood cell transfusion and a reduction in postoperative blood loss in patients treated with PCCs, there was a trend toward higher rates of acute kidney injury. It is unclear whether the use of PCCs increased the rates of postoperative thrombosis in these patients, but that possibility remains a critical risk to be explored in patients with vulnerable postoperative grafts and valves. Another key consideration is that PCCs are approved for the reversal of vitamin K–antagonized coagulopathy and the use in the postoperative patient is currently off-label unless specifically used to reverse the effects of warfarin taken before surgery.
The measurement of the extent of coagulopathy in these patients remains enigmatic as well. The use of point-of-care assays of coagulation, such as TEG and rotational thromboelastometry, remains variable even among large academic centers. It seems that the use of these phenotypic tests of clotting is increasing, yet the literature base and rigor needed to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of their inclusion in algorithmic approaches to the management of perioperative coagulopathy is lacking. To date, outcomes remain unstudied, the data focusing instead on the reduction of blood product transfusion as a result of the inclusion of TEG in management strategies. In one recent publication, the authors describe a single-center experience with the introduction of TEG into the postoperative management protocols and report an overall 40% reduction in the mean units of blood products used during overall hospitalizations for these patients.121 The reduction in usage of blood products seemed to return to pre-TEG levels in patients once they had progressed beyond 24 hours postoperatively.
Bleeding After Cardiopulmonary Bypass
Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) requires that patients have large bore central arterial and venous cannulation performed to complete a CPB circuit and those cannulae require high-dose systemic anticoagulation to remain patent and to prevent thromboembolic events from impacting the circuit. Each of the components of the CPB circuit is generally heparin bonded with the exception of the oxygenator. Despite the heparin bonding, the CPB circuit is markedly thrombogenic through direct activation of the clotting cascade via contact-mediated coagulation and through a secondary pathway of inflammation. This inflammatory pathway also leads to a coagulopathy that closely resembles the consumptive pathology of disseminated intravascular coagulation. In addition to the consumption of thrombocytes by the CPB circuit, the priming of the circuit with crystalloid (the standard prime) creates a dilutional coagulopathy as does the use of cell-saver technologies which reintroduce collected red blood cells from the surgical field. This is done in the absence of the associated clotting factors found in serum. After CPB, there remains a coagulopathy from the use of intraoperative heparin despite heparin reversal with protamine at the end of the CPB run. Remnant heparin activity contributes to some element of postoperative bleeding in many cases. TEG, although gaining some following in the management of CPB patients, has also been reported to underdiagnose and fails to predict hypercoagulable states when present in these patients, and may not determine the underlying cause of bleeding in CPB patients. The cause of this phenomenon remains unclear, and further study is underway.122
Bleeding in Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation
Bleeding while undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support is very common, with an estimated occurrence of over 40%. The most common site of bleeding in patients on venoarterial ECMO is the arterial cannula site, with an average transfusion volume of >10 units of PRBCs in most patients on circuit. Survival to discharge in patients on ECMO has been correlated with the total units of blood products required in numerous studies. Two variables that greatly affect the transfusion requirements are the efficiency of the ECMO circuit and the thresholds established by ECMO centers for blood product administration. There is no well-adopted clear threshold for ECMO patients’ transfusion targets, and most centers establish their own. Despite previous practice that established hemoglobin targets of 14 g/dL while on ECMO, including the current Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) guidelines recommending hemoglobin levels of 12–14 g/dL, many modern ECMO teams are targeting lower hemoglobin thresholds. Long-term outcomes data are not available, but restrictive transfusion strategies in patients on venovenous ECMO have been described without reported increases in mortality. Nonetheless, lower hemoglobin targets lead to fewer transfusions.
The ECMO circuit efficiency is another key driver of rates of transfusion. Large cannulae, well-running centrifugal pumps, heparin-bonded circuits, and high-efficiency oxygenators all lead to less thrombosis and in-circuit consumption. Patients are systemically anticoagulated to prevent thrombosis using a therapeutic heparin PTT (hPTT) target of between 60 and 80 seconds in many units; lower-intensity heparinization at 40–60 seconds has also been used with similar effect in prevention of thrombosis and lower bleeding rates. Bleeding on ECMO circuits that is not easily controlled with surgical manipulation of cannulae is often catastrophic. When coagulopathy occurs due to factor consumption in the ECMO circuit, TEG and other standard measures of coagulation are used to guide reversal; however, the use of antifibrinolytics and prothrombotic agents is fraught with risk. Ultimately, coagulation of the circuit and clotting in the oxygenator lead to complement activation, consumptive coagulopathy, and hemolysis that is profoundly injurious to end-organ capillary beds, including the kidney and, more importantly, the brain. Therefore, the use of coagulopathy reversal agents while patients are on ECMO circuits is rare.
Restarting Anticoagulant Therapy After Reversal to Prevent Thrombotic Complications
FXa inhibitors are widely used for the prevention of stroke in patients with AF. Patients with AF frequently undergo interventional procedures with attendant risks of bleeding, including catheter ablation of AF, pacemaker and defibrillator implantation, and left atrial appendage closure procedures. In the event of major life-threatening bleeding, FXa reversal may be pursued. When to again provide anticoagulation after reversal is a complicated clinical decision informed by the nature of the major bleeding event, the nature of the interventional procedure, and the underlying risk for thromboembolic events in the individual patient. Timely and optimal resumption of OAC are essential to minimize the risk of thromboembolic events.
There are many interventional electrophysiologic procedures, but in general, they can be grouped into 3 major categories for the purpose of this discussion. These categories include catheter-based procedures, such as diagnostic electrophysiology studies, catheter ablation of AF, and catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia; device implantation procedures, such as pacemaker, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization procedures; and left atrial appendage occlusion procedures, such as Watchman device implantation. The bleeding risks of each of these procedures vary but include bleeding due to access site and vessel cannulation, intrathoracic bleeding such as cardiac perforation and tamponade, and bleeding at noninstrumented sites due to systemic anticoagulation, such as ICH. These procedures also carry an increased risk of thromboembolic events, particularly in the case of left-sided ablation procedures where instrumentation and prothrombotic changes in the chambers that lead directly to the arterial circulation increase the risk of stroke. For example, the risk of transient ischemic attack or stroke is approximately 1% in the 30 days after ablation.
Use of Reversal Agents
The occurrence of major bleeding during or after electrophysiologic procedures in patients with therapeutic oral FXa inhibition requires cessation of DOAC therapy, provision of supportive measures, and correction of any anatomic sources of bleeding, such as femoral artery compression or pericardiocentesis. However, if bleeding continues or is life threatening, use of reversal agents may be necessary, alone or in conjunction with definitive surgical repair. As per a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association, all healthcare institutions should have a perioperative bleeding management and DOAC reversal protocol.123
Resumption of Anticoagulation
Administration of hemostatic factors can result in thromboembolism through a variety of mechanisms.124,125 Given the increased risks of thromboembolic events in patients with AF and the periprocedural risks of thromboembolic events, resuming OAC is an important priority after major bleeding, including life-threatening major bleeding. The risk of thromboembolic events was highlighted in the ANNEXA-4 trial, in which approximately 1 in 10 patients experienced a thrombotic event after administration of andexanet alfa for reversal of major, life-threatening bleeding. Similarly, at the conclusion of the major clinical trials that evaluated the use of DOACs compared with warfarin, transition off of FXa inhibitors was associated with an increased risk of stroke that correlated with prolonged time to therapeutic anticoagulation.126 The increased risks of thromboembolic events in these patient populations did not seem to be secondary to rebound phenomena. Rather, event rates increased with the duration of time off anticoagulation. Additionally, andexanet alfa may be prothrombotic due to increased thrombin generation, and this effect may contribute to some of the thrombotic events in patients who have received it.
Several conditions must be met before restarting anticoagulation can be considered. First, the major bleeding must have resolved. Second, the patient must be in an environment where reinitiating DOAC therapy and the patient’s response can be appropriately monitored. For most patients with life-threatening bleeding during or after an interventional electrophysiologic procedure, this will be in the hospital. The importance of appropriate supportive and interventional care cannot be overemphasized, and the benefit of resumption of anticoagulation must be balanced against the risk of complications. Supportive measures may include, but are not limited to, avoidance of unnecessary adjunctive antiplatelet therapy, appropriate surgical consultation and operative intervention when necessary, and transfusion of blood products when indicated.
The optimal approach to reinitiation of anticoagulation will depend upon each case; however, Figure 3 illustrates an approach to resumption of anticoagulation after an electrophysiologic procedure. Primary factors to consider include (1) the nature of the bleeding complication and anatomy; (2) the patient’s risk factors for thromboembolism (eg, Congestive heart failure-Hypertension-Age 2-Diabetes-Stroke/Transient ischemic attack 2-VAScular disease [CHA2DS2-VASc] score and other stroke risk factors); and (3) the specific procedure the patient underwent, such as device implantation versus left-sided ablation. For example, a patient with AF and no additional risk factors for stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc = 0) who experienced a spontaneous subarachnoid bleed after an elective pacemaker implant will be approached very differently than a patient with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 6 who had pericardial tamponade at the end of a catheter ablation procedure for AF. Patients with multiple risk factors for stroke and patients undergoing left-sided catheter ablation procedures are at the highest risk of postoperative thromboembolic events. For example, all patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF must receive therapeutic anticoagulation for 2–3 months after the procedure to reduce the risk of stroke.127
Resumption of Anticoagulation After Cardiac Tamponade
A challenging and illustrative case in resumption of anticoagulation after major, life-threatening bleeding with reversal of FXa inhibition is the resumption of anticoagulation after cardiac tamponade. Patients who experience cardiac tamponade during catheter ablation require emergent pericardiocentesis. A pericardial drain is placed and drain output is carefully monitored after the procedure. If there is no significant evidence of repeat bleeding (minimal drain output), anticoagulation can be resumed. Ideally, this is done with administration of intravenous heparin without a bolus. If the patient tolerates therapeutic heparin without evidence of repeat bleeding, the pericardial drain is pulled and DOAC therapy is resumed. After 1–2 doses of DOAC therapy, an echocardiogram is usually repeated to ensure that there is no recurrence of the effusion.
Resumption of Anticoagulation After ICH
Another challenging case is the resumption of OAC after the occurrence of ICH. Prophylactic subcutaneous enoxaparin may be started 24 hours after an ICH, provided ≥4 terminal half-lives of the anticoagulation agent used at the index time of the ICH have passed and a stability image shows no progression of bleeding. Registry data suggest that the majority of patients in clinical practice resume OAC after an ICH event within 6 months.128 In general, observational studies have shown that resuming OAC after prior ICH is associated with a 70% reduction in the risk of thromboembolism (relative risk, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.23–0.42).129 Systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that there is no evidence of increased risk of recurrent ICH after resuming OAC (relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.58–1.77), although the highest risk patients may not have resumed OAC.130 Of course, after an ICH event, everything should be done to minimize bleeding risk, including but not limited to optimal blood pressure control, avoidance of concomitant antiplatelet therapy whenever possible, and avoidance of other medications that increase bleeding risk, such as NSAIDs. When to resume OAC after an ICH event is a controversial decision that, again, depends on the specific circumstances of the bleeding event, the risk factors for recurrent ICH, and the patient’s underlying risk for thromboembolism. Care must be used in patients with primary ICH, and a risk/benefit analysis much be performed for each patient. For example, a patient with cerebral amyloid angiopathy would likely be too high risk to be anticoagulated, but a patient without underlying vascular abnormalities and a hypertensive etiology of hemorrhage may be appropriate for anticoagulation after hypertension has been controlled. Resumption of therapeutic anticoagulation usually occurs 2–4 weeks after the bleeding event.131
Further studies are needed to clarify optimal strategies for resumption of OAC after an ICH event. Fortunately, there are several ongoing clinical trials that will help clarify best practices. For example, the Apixaban versus Antiplatelet drugs or no antithrombotic drugs after anticoagulation-associated intraCerebral HaEmorrhage in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (APACHE-AF) trial will enroll patients with AF and recent ICH and randomize them to apixaban versus avoidance of OAC.132
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The use of oral anticoagulants is becoming more common as the population ages, and anticoagulant-related bleeding events will continue to increase in frequency. This monograph summarizes the recommendations of the EMCREG-International Multidisciplinary Severe Bleeding Consensus Panel regarding management of severe bleeding in patients on oral anticoagulants based on currently available data. There are many areas, however, where further research is required. Most importantly, current data on the efficacy of DOAC reversal agents are based on improvement in bleeding times; there has been no randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of reversal agents based on patient outcomes. Additionally, an analysis of the pharmacoeconomics of reversal agents is necessary to evaluate the cost of the drug as it relates to the cost of the episode of care and quality-adjusted life years. Because of the short half-life of andexanet alfa, repeat dosing may be necessary, but the strategies for repeat dosing and the measures used to drive repeat dosing have yet to be clearly defined. A time-to-treat analysis to determine the therapeutic window during which reversal agents can be used would be beneficial as well, especially for physicians who will be making the decision to transfer patients with life-threatening bleeds to institutions that have reversal agents available. The role of renal insufficiency in treatment with reversal agents, particularly as it relates to the treatment window, remains to be defined. The role of 4FPCCs in patients with DOAC-related bleeding must be evaluated as well. There are currently no studies linking clinical outcomes to the use of 4FPCCs in bleeding patients, and the upstream use of 4FPCCs may preclude use of andexanet alfa because of the risk of severe complications. And finally, it is imperative that the optimal timing for resumption of anticoagulation to avoid thrombotic complications be investigated.
1. Hirsh J, Dalen J, Anderson DR, et al. Oral anticoagulants: mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic range. Chest. 2001;119(suppl 1):8S–21S.
2. Douxfils J, Ageno W, Samama CM, et al. Laboratory testing in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants: a practical guide for clinicians. J Thromb Haemost. 2018;16:209–219.
3. Larsen TB, Skjøth F, Nielsen PB, et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: propensity weighted nationwide cohort study. BMJ. 2016;353:i3189.
4. Steiner T, Poli S, Griebe M, et al. Fresh frozen plasma versus prothrombin complex concentrate in patients with intracranial haemorrhage related to vitamin K antagonists (INCH): a randomised trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016;15:566–573.
5. AndexXa (andexanet alfa
) [package insert]. 2017.San Francisco, CA: Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
6. Ageno W, Gallus AS, Wittkowsky A, et al. Oral Anticoagulant Therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(suppl 2):e44S–e88S.
7. Pradaxa (dabigatran) [package insert]. 2015.Ridgefield, CT: Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
8. Savasaya (edoxaban) [package insert]. 2017.Parsippany, NJ: Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.
9. Xarelto (rivaroxaban) [package insert]. 2017.Titusville, NJ: Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
10. Eliquis (apixaban) [package insert]. 2017.Princeton, NJ: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.
11. Bevyxxa (betrixaban) [package insert]. 2017.San Francisco, CA: Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
12. Weitz JI, Pollack CV Jr.. Practical management of bleeding in patients receiving non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants. Thromb Haemost. 2015;114:1113–1126.
13. Ebner M, Birschmann I, Peter A, et al. Emergency coagulation assessment during treatment with direct oral anticoagulants: limitations and solutions. Stroke. 2017;48:2457–2463.
14. Abraham NS, Horsley-Silva JL. Gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to the new anticoagulants. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2016;32:474–480.
15. Kreitzer NP, Bonomo J, Kanter D, et al. Review of thromboelastography in neurocritical care. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23:427–433.
16. Dentali F, Riva N, Crowther M, et al. Efficacy and safety of the novel oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Circulation. 2012;126:2381–2391.
17. Lopes LC, Spencer FA, Neumann I, et al. Bleeding risk in atrial fibrillation patients taking vitamin K antagonists: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:367–375.
18. Caldeira D, Barra M, Pinto FJ, et al. Intracranial hemorrhage risk with the new oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurol. 2015;262:516–522.
19. Chai-Adisaksopha C, Crowther M, Isayama T, et al. The impact of bleeding complications in patients receiving target-specific oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood. 2014;124:2450–2458.
20. Caldeira D, Rodrigues FB, Barra M, et al. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and major bleeding-related fatality in patients with atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Heart. 2015;101:1204–1211.
21. Holster IL, Valkhoff VE, Kuipers EJ, et al. New oral anticoagulants increase risk for gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:105 e15–12 e15.
22. Majeed A, Meijer K, Larrazabal R, et al. Mortality in vitamin K antagonist-related intracerebral bleeding treated with plasma or 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate. Thromb Haemost. 2014;111:233–239.
23. Connolly SJ, Ezekowitz MD, Yusuf S, et al; RE-LY Steering Committee and Investigators. Dabigatran versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1139–1151.
24. Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Garg J, et al; ROCKET AF Investigators. Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:883–891.
25. Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJ, et al; ARISTOTLE Committees and Investigators. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–992.
26. Giugliano RP, Ruff CT, Braunwald E, et al; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Investigators. Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093–2104.
27. Holbrook A, Schulman S, Witt DM, et al. Evidence-Based Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 suppl):e152S–e84S.
28. Joseph R, Burner J, Yates S, et al. Thromboembolic outcomes after use of a four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate for vitamin K antagonist reversal in a real-world setting. Transfusion. 2016;56:799–807.
29. Schiele F, van Ryn J, Canada K, et al. A specific antidote for dabigatran: functional and structural characterization. Blood. 2013;121:3554–3562.
30. Pollack CV Jr, Reilly PA, van Ryn J, et al. Idarucizumab
for dabigatran reversal: full cohort analysis. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:431–441.
31. Siegal DM, Curnutte JT, Connolly SJ, et al. Andexanet Alfa
for the Reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitor Activity. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2413–2424.
32. Connolly SJ, Crowther M, Eikelboom JW, et al. Full Study Report of Andexanet Alfa
for Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors
. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1326–1335.
33. Eerenberg ES, Kamphuisen PW, Sijpkens MK, et al. Reversal of rivaroxaban and dabigatran by prothrombin complex concentrate: a randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy subjects. Circulation. 2011;124:1573–1579.
34. Cheung YW, Barco S, Hutten BA, et al. In vivo increase in thrombin generation by four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in apixaban-treated healthy volunteers. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13:1799–1805.
35. Lu G, DeGuzman FR, Hollenbach SJ, et al. A specific antidote for reversal of anticoagulation
by direct and indirect inhibitors of coagulation factor Xa. Nat Med. 2013;19:446–451.
36. Kovacs RJ, Flaker GC, Saxonhouse SJ, et al. Practical management of anticoagulation
in patients with atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65:1340–1360.
37. Siegal DM, Garcia DA, Crowther MA. How I treat target-specific oral anticoagulant-associated bleeding. Blood. 2014;123:1152–1158.
38. Pollack CV Jr.. New oral anticoagulants in the ED setting: a review. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30:2046–2054.
39. Kaatz S, Ahmad D, Spyropoulos AC, Schulman S; Subcommittee on Control of Anticoagulation
. Definition of clinically relevant non-major bleeding in studies of anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolic disease in non-surgical patients: communication from the SSC of the ISTH. J Thromb Haemost. 2015;13:2119–2126.
40. Baharoglu MI, Cordonnier C, Al-Shahi Salman R, et al; PATCH Investigators. Platelet transfusion versus standard care after acute stroke due to spontaneous cerebral haemorrhage associated with antiplatelet therapy (PATCH): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2016;387:2605–2613.
41. Zakko L, Rustagi T, Douglas M, et al. No benefit from platelet transfusion for gastrointestinal bleeding in patients taking antiplatelet agents. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:46–52.
42. Abraham NS. New clinical paradigms for treating and preventing antiplatelet gastrointestinal bleeding. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2017;33:467–472.
43. Bulger EM, Snyder D, Schoelles K, et al. An evidence-based prehospital guideline for external hemorrhage control: American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18:163–173.
44. Davis JS, Satahoo SS, Butler FK, et al. An analysis of prehospital deaths: Who can we save? J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;77:213–218.
45. Powell EK, Hinckley WR, Gottula A, et al. Shorter times to packed red blood cell transfusion are associated with decreased risk of death in traumatically injured patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81:458–462.
46. Andrews H, Rittenhouse K, Gross B, et al. The effect of time to international normalized ratio reversal on intracranial hemorrhage evolution in patients with traumatic brain injury. J Trauma Nurs. 2017;24:381–384.
47. Gomes JA, Ahrens CL, Hussain MS, et al; Cleveland Pre-Hospital Acute Stroke Treatment Study Group. Prehospital reversal of warfarin-related coagulopathy in intracerebral hemorrhage in a mobile stroke treatment unit. Stroke. 2015;46:e118–e120.
48. Mena-Munoz J, Srivastava U, Martin-Gill C, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of blood product transfusion during critical care transport. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20:586–593.
49. Parker ME, Khasawneh MA, Thiels CA, et al. Prehospital transfusion for gastrointestinal bleeding. Air Med J. 2017;36:315–319.
50. Thiels CA, Aho JM, Fahy AS, et al. Prehospital blood transfusions in non-trauma patients. World J Surg. 2016;40:2297–2304.
51. Goldstein J, Jensen JL, Carter AJ, Travers AH, Rockwood K. The epidemiology of prehospital emergency responses for older adults in a provincial EMS system. CJEM. 2015;17:491–496.
52. Nishijima DK, Gaona S, Waechter T, et al. Do EMS providers accurately ascertain anticoagulant and antiplatelet use in older adults with head trauma? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2017;21:209–215.
53. Boulton AJ, Lewis CT, Naumann DN, et al. Prehospital haemostatic dressings for trauma: a systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2018;35:449–457.
54. Beaucreux C, Vivien B, Miles E, et al. Application of tourniquet in civilian trauma: systematic review of the literature. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2018;37:597–606.
55. Teixeira PGR, Brown CVR, Emigh B, et al; Texas Tourniquet Study Group. Civilian prehospital tourniquet use is associated with improved survival in patients with peripheral vascular injury. J Am Coll Surg. 2018;226:769.e1–776.e1.
56. Perel P, Al-Shahi Salman R, Kawahara T, et al. CRASH-2 (Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage) intracranial bleeding study: the effect of tranexamic acid in traumatic brain injury–a nested randomised, placebo-controlled trial. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:iii, 1–xii, 1.
57. El-Menyar A, Sathian B, Asim M, et al. Efficacy of prehospital administration of tranexamic acid in trauma patients: a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:1079–1087.
58. Neeki MM, Dong F, Toy J, et al. Efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid in prehospital traumatic hemorrhagic shock: outcomes of the Cal-PAT study. West J Emerg Med. 2017;18:673–683.
59. Fischer PE, Bulger EM, Perina DG, et al. Guidance document for the prehospital use of tranexamic acid in injured patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016;20:557–559.
60. Moore HB, Moore EE, Huebner BR, et al. Tranexamic acid is associated with increased mortality in patients with physiological fibrinolysis. J Surg Res. 2017;220:438–443.
61. Peltan ID, Rowhani-Rahbar A, Vande Vusse LK, et al. Development and validation of a prehospital prediction model for acute traumatic coagulopathy. Crit Care. 2016;20:371.
62. Moore HB, Moore EE, Morton AP, et al. Shock-induced systemic hyperfibrinolysis is attenuated by plasma-first resuscitation. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;79:897–903; discussion 903.
63. Sperry JL, Guyette FX, Brown JB, et al; PAMPer Study Group. Prehospital plasma during air medical transport in trauma patients at risk for hemorrhagic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:315–326.
64. Lendrum RA, Kotze JP, Lockey DJ, et al. Case studies in prehospital care from London HEMS: pre-hospital administration of prothrombin complex concentrate to the head-injured patient. Emerg Med J. 2013;30:247–248.
65. Robertson LC, McKinlay JA, Munro PT, et al. Use of prothrombin complex concentrates: 4-year experience of a national aeromedical retrieval service servicing remote and rural areas. Emerg Med J. 2014;31:109–114.
66. Innerhofer P, Fries D, Mittermayr M, et al. Reversal of trauma-induced coagulopathy using first-line coagulation factor concentrates or fresh frozen plasma (RETIC): a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised trial. Lancet Haematol. 2017;4:e258–e271.
67. Zhao H, Coote S, Pesavento L, et al. Prehospital idarucizumab
prior to intravenous thrombolysis in a mobile stroke unit. Int J Stroke. 2019;14:265–269.
68. Hervig T, Doughty H, Ness P, et al. Prehospital use of plasma: the blood bankers’ perspective. Shock. 2014;41(suppl 1):39–43.
69. Kaatz S, Mahan CE, Nakhle A, et al. Management of elective surgery and emergent bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants. Curr Cardiol Rep. 2017;19:124.
70. Tomaselli GF, Mahaffey KW, Cuker A, et al. 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: a report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70:3042–3067.
71. Taylor CA, Bell JM, Breiding MJ, et al. Traumatic brain injury–related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and deaths—United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR Surveill Summ 2017;66(No. SS-9):1–16.
72. Nishijima DK, Laurie AL, Weiss RE, et al. Reliability of clinical assessments in older adults with syncope or near syncope. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:1014–1021.
73. Brewer ES, Reznikov B, Liberman RF, et al. Incidence and predictors of intracranial hemorrhage after minor head trauma in patients taking anticoagulant and antiplatelet medication. J Trauma. 2011;70:E1–E5.
74. Ganetsky M, Lopez G, Coreanu T, et al. Risk of intracranial hemorrhage in ground-level fall with antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24:1258–1266.
75. Smith AT, Wrenn KD, Barrett TW, et al. Delayed intracranial hemorrhage after head trauma in patients on direct-acting oral anticoagulants. Am J Emerg Med. 2017;35:377.e1–377.e2.
76. Barmparas G, Kobayashi L, Dhillon NK, et al. The risk of delayed intracranial hemorrhage with direct acting oral anticoagulants after trauma: a two-center study. Am J Surg. 2018. [Epub ahead of print].
77. Kreitzer N, Adeoye O. Intracerebral hemorrhage in anticoagulated patients: evidence-based emergency department management. Emerg Med Pract. 2015;17:1–23; quiz 23.
78. Kreitzer N, Lyons MS, Hart K, et al. Repeat neuroimaging of mild traumatic brain-injured patients with acute traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: clinical outcomes and radiographic features. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21:1083–1091.
79. Feeney JM, Santone E, DiFiori M, et al. Compared to warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants are associated with lower mortality in patients with blunt traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a TQIP study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81:843–848.
80. Kuramatsu JB, Gerner ST, Schellinger PD, et al. Anticoagulant reversal, blood pressure levels, and anticoagulant resumption in patients with anticoagulation
-related intracerebral hemorrhage. JAMA. 2015;313:824–836.
81. da Silva IR, Provencio JJ. Intracerebral hemorrhage in patients receiving oral anticoagulation
therapy. J Intensive Care Med. 2015;30:63–78.
82. Flaherty ML, Haverbusch M, Sekar P, et al. Location and outcome of anticoagulant-associated intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2006;5:197–201.
83. Rosand J, Eckman MH, Knudsen KA, et al. The effect of warfarin and intensity of anticoagulation
on outcome of intracerebral hemorrhage. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:880–884.
84. Hemphill JC III, Greenberg SM, Anderson CS, et al; American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology. Guidelines for the Management of Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Guideline for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2015;46:2032–2060.
85. Cabral KP, Fraser GL, Duprey J, et al. Prothrombin complex concentrates to reverse warfarin-induced coagulopathy in patients with intracranial bleeding. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2013;115:770–774.
86. Wendelboe AM, Raskob GE. Global burden of thrombosis: epidemiologic aspects. Circ Res. 2016;118:1340–1347.
87. Gómez-Outes A, Lecumberri R, Suárez-Gea ML, et al. Case fatality rates of recurrent thromboembolism and bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants for the initial and extended treatment of venous thromboembolism: a systematic review. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2015;20:490–500.
88. Feeney JM, Neulander M, DiFiori M, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin in patients with severe blunt trauma. Injury. 2017;48:47–50.
89. Nagata N, Sakurai T, Moriyasu S, et al. Impact of INR monitoring, reversal agent use, heparin bridging, and anticoagulant interruption on rebleeding and thromboembolism in acute gastrointestinal bleeding. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0183423.
90. Maxwell RA, Bell CM. Acute kidney injury in the critically ill. Surg Clin North Am. 2017;97:1399–1418.
91. Yunos NM, Bellomo R, Glassford N, et al. Chloride-liberal vs. chloride-restrictive intravenous fluid administration and acute kidney injury: an extended analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:257–264.
92. Bethea ED, Travis AC, Saltzman JR. Initial assessment and management of patients with nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal bleeding. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014;48:823–829.
93. Abraham NS. Management of antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2015;25:449–462.
94. Strate LL, Gralnek IM. ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Patients With Acute Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:459–474.
95. Chan WH, Khin LW, Chung YF, et al. Randomized controlled trial of standard versus high-dose intravenous omeprazole after endoscopic therapy in high-risk patients with acute peptic ulcer bleeding. Br J Surg. 2011;98:640–644.
96. Buchberger AMS, Baumann A, Johnson F, et al. The role of oral anticoagulants in epistaxis. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2018;275:2035–2043.
97. Iqbal IZ, Jones GH, Dawe N, et al. Intranasal packs and haemostatic agents for the management of adult epistaxis: systematic review. J Laryngol Otol. 2017;131:1065–1092.
98. Nishida T, Kinoshita T, Yamakawa K. Tranexamic acid and trauma-induced coagulopathy. J Intensive Care. 2017;5:5.
99. Heymer J, Schilling T, Räpple D. Use of a mucosal atomization device for local application of tranexamic acid in epistaxis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:2327.
100. Zahed R, Mousavi Jazayeri MH, Naderi A, et al. Topical tranexamic acid compared with anterior nasal packing for treatment of epistaxis in patients taking antiplatelet drugs: randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25:261–266.
101. Birmingham AR, Mah ND, Ran R, et al. Topical tranexamic acid for the treatment of acute epistaxis in the emergency department. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36:1242–1245.
102. Zahed R, Moharamzadeh P, Alizadeharasi S, et al. A new and rapid method for epistaxis treatment using injectable form of tranexamic acid topically: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2013;31:1389–1392.
103. Kumbargere Nagraj S, Prashanti E, Aggarwal H, et al. Interventions for treating post-extraction bleeding. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD011930.
104. Zirk M, Zinser M, Buller J, et al. Supportive topical tranexamic acid application for hemostasis in oral bleeding events - retrospective cohort study of 542 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2018;46:932–936.
105. Engelen ET, Schutgens RE, Mauser-Bunschoten EP, et al. Antifibrinolytic therapy for preventing oral bleeding in people on anticoagulants undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD012293.
106. Holcomb JB, Jenkins D, Rhee P, et al. Damage control resuscitation: directly addressing the early coagulopathy of trauma. J Trauma. 2007;62:307–310.
107. Holcomb JB, Tilley BC, Baraniuk S, et al; PROPPR Study Group. Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015;313:471–482.
108. Beekley AC, Starnes BW, Sebesta JA. Lessons learned from modern military surgery. Surg Clin North Am. 2007;87:157–184, vii.
109. Biffl WL, Fox CJ, Moore EE. The role of REBOA in the control of exsanguinating torso hemorrhage. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2015;78:1054–1058.
110. Sarode R, Milling TJ Jr, Refaai MA, et al. Efficacy and safety of a 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in patients on vitamin K antagonists presenting with major bleeding: a randomized, plasma-controlled, phase IIIb study. Circulation. 2013;128:1234–1243.
111. Younis M, Ray-Zack M, Haddad NN, et al. Prothrombin complex concentrate reversal of coagulopathy in emergency general surgery patients. World J Surg. 2018;42:2383–2391.
112. Jehan F, Aziz H, O’Keeffe T, et al. The role of four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate in coagulopathy of trauma: a propensity matched analysis. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018;85:18–24.
113. Da Luz LT, Nascimento B, Shankarakutty AK, et al. Effect of thromboelastography (TEG®) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) on diagnosis of coagulopathy, transfusion guidance and mortality in trauma: descriptive systematic review. Crit Care. 2014;18:518.
114. Chacko Y, Parikh RV, Tremmel JA. Vascular access-related complications in women: temporal trends, emerging data, and the current state of interventional cardiology practice. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018;20:41.
115. Kolkailah AA, Alreshq RS, Muhammed AM, et al. Transradial versus transfemoral approach for diagnostic coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention in people with coronary artery disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4:CD012318.
116. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, et al; MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;392:835–848.
117. Bauer T, Boeder N, Nef HM, et al. Fate of patients with coronary perforation complicating percutaneous coronary intervention (from the Euro Heart Survey Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry). Am J Cardiol. 2015;116:1363–1367.
118. Abo-Salem E, Becker RC. Reversal of novel oral anticoagulants. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2016;27:86–91.
119. Stephens RS, Whitman GJ. Postoperative critical care of the adult cardiac surgical patient. Part I: routine postoperative care. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:1477–1497.
120. Cappabianca G, Mariscalco G, Biancari F, et al. Safety and efficacy of prothrombin complex concentrate as first-line treatment in bleeding after cardiac surgery. Crit Care. 2016;20:5.
121. Fleming K, Redfern RE, March RL, et al. TEG-directed transfusion in complex cardiac surgery: impact on blood product usage. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2017;49:283–290.
122. Welsh KJ, Padilla A, Dasgupta A, et al. Thromboelastography is a suboptimal test for determination of the underlying cause of bleeding associated with cardiopulmonary bypass and may not predict a hypercoagulable state. Am J Clin Pathol. 2014;142:492–497.
123. Raval AN, Cigarroa JE, Chung MK, et al; American Heart Association Clinical Pharmacology Subcommittee of the Acute Cardiac Care and General Cardiology Committee of the Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; and Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research. Management of patients on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in the acute care and periprocedural setting: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2017;135:e604–e633.
124. Dentali F, Marchesi C, Giorgi Pierfranceschi M, et al. Safety of prothrombin complex concentrates for rapid anticoagulation
reversal of vitamin K antagonists. A meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost. 2011;106:429–438.
125. Aronis KN, Hylek EM. Who, when, and how to reverse non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2016;41:253–272.
126. Patel MR, Hellkamp AS, Lokhnygina Y, et al. Outcomes of discontinuing rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: analysis from the ROCKET AF trial (Rivaroxaban Once-Daily, Oral, Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:651–658.
127. Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017 HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: executive summary. J Arrhythm. 2017;33:369–409.
128. Pennlert J, Asplund K, Carlberg B, et al. Antithrombotic treatment following intracerebral hemorrhage in patients with and without atrial fibrillation. Stroke. 2015;46:2094–2099.
129. Zhou Z, Yu J, Carcel C, et al. Resuming anticoagulants after anticoagulation
-associated intracranial haemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e019672.
130. Murthy SB, Gupta A, Merkler AE, et al. Restarting anticoagulant therapy after intracranial hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2017;48:1594–1600.
131. Li YG, Lip GYH. Anticoagulation
resumption after intracerebral hemorrhage. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2018;20:32.
132. van Nieuwenhuizen KM, van der Worp HB, Algra A, et al; APACHE-AF Investigators. Apixaban versus antiplatelet drugs or no antithrombotic drugs after anticoagulation
-associated intracerebral haemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation (APACHE-AF): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2015;16:393.
133. Merli G, Hiestand B, Amin A, et al. Balancing Anti-thrombotic Efficacy and Bleeding Risk in the Contemporary Management of Venous Thromboembolism. Curr Emerg Hosp Med Rep 2015;3:89–99.
134. Mueck W, Stampfuss J, Kubitza D, Becka M. Clinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of rivaroxaban. Clin Pharmacokinetics 2014;53:1–16.
Keywords:Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved
4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates; andexanet alfa; anticoagulation; bleeding reversal; coumadin; factor IIa inhibitors; factor Xa inhibitors; idarucizumab; severe bleeding