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