Reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitor-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Andexanet and Prothrombin Complex Concentrates.

IF 7.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Nicholas G Panos, G Morgan Jones, Aaron M Cook, Gary D Peksa, Sayona John, Joshua M DeMott, Philip Tobias, Ivan Da Silva
{"title":"Reversal of Factor Xa Inhibitor-Related Intracranial Hemorrhage: A Multicenter, Retrospective, Observational Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of Andexanet and Prothrombin Complex Concentrates.","authors":"Nicholas G Panos, G Morgan Jones, Aaron M Cook, Gary D Peksa, Sayona John, Joshua M DeMott, Philip Tobias, Ivan Da Silva","doi":"10.1097/CCM.0000000000006656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the effectiveness and safety of andexanet and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) when administered after intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) associated with direct oral anticoagulants, specifically apixaban or rivaroxaban.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with apixaban or rivaroxaban-related ICrH who received andexanet or PCCs between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2023. A predefined sensitivity analysis excluding patients with an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 7 was also performed.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Forty-two stroke centers in the United States.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>A total of 1133 patients.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostasis as defined by the modified Sarode criteria. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of a thrombotic event (TE) during their hospital stay. Of the 1133 patients evaluated, 1096 were included. In the full hemostatic efficacy analysis, patients receiving andexanet (87.8%) had higher odds of achieving excellent or good hemostasis (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% CI, 1.00-2.56; p = 0.048) compared with PCCs (81.8%). Patients treated with andexanet (7.9%) had higher odds of a TE (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.13-3.20; p = 0.014) compared to those treated with PCCs (4.2%). No differences in hemostatic or thrombotic outcomes were observed when the sensitivity analysis was applied.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite statistically higher odds of achieving hemostatic efficacy with andexanet, we also observed higher odds of a TE with no difference in discharge outcomes observed between groups. When those with more severe neurologic injuries were excluded, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar between treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10765,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000006656","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effectiveness and safety of andexanet and prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) when administered after intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH) associated with direct oral anticoagulants, specifically apixaban or rivaroxaban.

Design: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study of patients with apixaban or rivaroxaban-related ICrH who received andexanet or PCCs between January 1, 2015, and March 31, 2023. A predefined sensitivity analysis excluding patients with an admission Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 7 was also performed.

Setting: Forty-two stroke centers in the United States.

Patients: A total of 1133 patients.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage of patients with excellent or good hemostasis as defined by the modified Sarode criteria. The primary safety outcome was the occurrence of a thrombotic event (TE) during their hospital stay. Of the 1133 patients evaluated, 1096 were included. In the full hemostatic efficacy analysis, patients receiving andexanet (87.8%) had higher odds of achieving excellent or good hemostasis (odds ratio [OR] 1.60; 95% CI, 1.00-2.56; p = 0.048) compared with PCCs (81.8%). Patients treated with andexanet (7.9%) had higher odds of a TE (OR 1.91; 95% CI, 1.13-3.20; p = 0.014) compared to those treated with PCCs (4.2%). No differences in hemostatic or thrombotic outcomes were observed when the sensitivity analysis was applied.

Conclusions: Despite statistically higher odds of achieving hemostatic efficacy with andexanet, we also observed higher odds of a TE with no difference in discharge outcomes observed between groups. When those with more severe neurologic injuries were excluded, efficacy and safety outcomes were similar between treatments.

逆转Xa因子抑制剂相关颅内出血:一项多中心、回顾性、观察性研究,比较anddexanet和凝血酶原复合物浓缩物的疗效和安全性。
目的:探讨安地沙奈和凝血酶原复合物浓缩物(PCCs)在颅内出血(ICrH)合并直接口服抗凝药物(特别是阿哌沙班或利伐沙班)后应用的有效性和安全性。设计:一项多中心、回顾性、观察性研究,研究对象为2015年1月1日至2023年3月31日期间接受阿哌沙班或利伐沙班相关ICrH且接受安得沙奈或PCCs治疗的患者。还进行了预定义的敏感性分析,排除了入院时格拉斯哥昏迷评分低于7分的患者。背景:美国有42个中风中心。患者:共1133例患者。干预措施:没有。测量结果和主要结果:主要疗效指标是根据改良的Sarode标准定义的良好或良好止血的患者百分比。主要的安全性指标是住院期间血栓形成事件(TE)的发生。在评估的1133例患者中,1096例被纳入。在完全止血效果分析中,接受anddexanet的患者(87.8%)获得优异或良好止血的几率更高(优势比[or] 1.60;95% ci, 1.00-2.56;p = 0.048)与PCCs(81.8%)相比。接受anddexanet治疗的患者(7.9%)发生TE的几率更高(OR 1.91;95% ci, 1.13-3.20;p = 0.014),与PCCs治疗组相比(4.2%)。当应用敏感性分析时,止血或血栓结局没有观察到差异。结论:尽管统计学上anddexanet达到止血效果的几率更高,但我们也观察到TE的几率更高,两组之间的出院结果没有差异。当排除更严重的神经损伤时,两种治疗的疗效和安全性结果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care Medicine
Critical Care Medicine 医学-危重病医学
CiteScore
16.30
自引率
5.70%
发文量
728
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Critical Care Medicine is the premier peer-reviewed, scientific publication in critical care medicine. Directed to those specialists who treat patients in the ICU and CCU, including chest physicians, surgeons, pediatricians, pharmacists/pharmacologists, anesthesiologists, critical care nurses, and other healthcare professionals, Critical Care Medicine covers all aspects of acute and emergency care for the critically ill or injured patient. Each issue presents critical care practitioners with clinical breakthroughs that lead to better patient care, the latest news on promising research, and advances in equipment and techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信