Outcome of Surgical Interventions and Deliveries in Patients with Bleeding of Unknown Cause: An Observational Study

Standardization of definition and management for bleeding disorder of unknown cause: communication from the SSC of the ISTH

In many patients referred with significant bleeding phenotype, laboratory testing fails to define any hemostatic abnormalities. Clinical practice with respect to diagnosis and management of this patient cohort poses significant clinical challenges. We recommend that bleeding history in these patients should be objectively assessed using the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) bleeding assessment tool. Patients with increased bleeding assessment tool scores should progress to hemostasis laboratory testing. To diagnose bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC), normal complete blood count, prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, von Willebrand factor antigen, von Willebrand factor function, coagulation factors VIII, IX, and XI, and platelet light transmission aggregometry should be the minimum laboratory assessment. In some laboratories, additional specialized hemostasis testing may be performed to identify other rare causes of bleeding. We recommend that patients with a significant bleeding phenotype but normal laboratory investigations should be registered with a diagnosis of BDUC in preference to other terminology. Global hemostatic tests and markers of fibrinolysis demonstrate variable abnormalities, and their clinical significance remains uncertain. Targeted genomic sequencing examining candidate hemostatic genes has a low diagnostic yield. Underlying BDUC should be considered in patients with heavy menstrual bleeding since delays in diagnosis often extend to many years and negatively impact quality of life. Treatment options for BDUC patients include tranexamic acid, desmopressin, and platelet transfusions.

The necessity of repeat testing for von Willebrand disease in adult patients with mild to moderate bleeding disorders

BACKGROUND

In patients with mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders (MBD), von Willebrand disease (VWD) is diagnosed at von Willebrand factor (VWF) levels ≤50 IU/dL. Although VWF levels are unstable, repeated testing for VWD diagnosis is not necessarily advised in recent guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the relevance of repeated VWF testing to diagnose VWD in patients with MBD.

METHODS

Data of 277 patients with MBD from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank with at least 2 separate assessments of VWF antigen (VWF:Ag) and activity (VWF:Act) were analyzed.

RESULTS

In repeated VWF measurements, 36 patients (13.0%) had "changing" VWF levels (≤/>50 IU/dL), 27 (9.7%) had persistent levels ≤50 IU/dL ("pathologic"), and 214 (77.3%) had levels >50 IU/dL ("normal"). Of the 36 changing patients, 22 (61%) were diagnosed with VWD at baseline, whereas the others only met VWD diagnostic criteria at repeated measurements. Using logistic regression, we estimated a probability of change of 26.4% (95% CI, 12.5-47.4) at baseline VWF levels of 30 IU/dL, 50.8% (95% CI, 35.6-65.8) at 50 IU/dL, 18.8% (95% CI, 12.3-27.6) at 60 IU/dL, and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.3-4.9) at 80 IU/dL. Baseline VWF was a strong predictor for changing status (Χ2 = 49.9; P < .001), while age, sex, Vicenza score, and blood type O had limited added value (Χ2 = 5.1; P = .278). Baseline VWF:Ag or VWF:Act cutoffs of 80 IU/dL had negative predictive values of 98.1% and 99.1% for changing status, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our data emphasize an overlap between patients with VWD and MBD with bleeding disorder of unknown cause and underline the need for repeated VWF testing, especially in patients with VWF levels <80 IU/dL.

Investigating patients for bleeding disorders when most of the "usual" ones have been ruled out

A State of the Art lecture titled "Investigating Patients for Bleeding Disorders When Most of the Usual Ones Have Been Ruled Out" was presented at the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress in 2023. Mild to moderate bleeding disorders (MBDs) in patients in whom no diagnosis of an established disorder, such as platelet function defect, von Willebrand disease, or a coagulation factor deficiency, can be identified are classified as bleeding disorders of unknown cause (BDUCs). Prospective data from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank and other studies have revealed a high proportion of BDUCs of up to 70% among patients with MBD who have a similar bleeding phenotype as other MBDs. As BDUC is a diagnosis of exclusion, the accuracy of the diagnostic workup is essential. For example, repeated testing for von Willebrand disease should be considered if von Willebrand factor values are <80 IU/dL. Current evidence does not support the clinical use of global assays such as thromboelastography, platelet function analyzer, or thrombin generation potential. Rare and novel bleeding disorders due to genetic variants in fibrinolytic factors or natural anticoagulants are rare and should only be analyzed in patients with specific phenotypes and a clear family history. In BDUC, blood group O was identified as a risk factor for increased bleeding severity and bleeding risk after hemostatic challenges. Future studies should improve the phenotypical characterization and ideally identify novel risk factors in BDUC, as a multifactorial pathogenesis is suspected. Finally, we summarize relevant new data on this topic presented during the 2023 International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis Congress.

Risk factors for future bleeding in patients with mild bleeding disorders: longitudinal data from the Vienna Bleeding Biobank

BACKGROUND

The future bleeding risk, especially after hemostatic challenges, and thus the requirement for hemostatic treatment in patients with mild-to-moderate bleeding disorders (MBDs) is largely unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to prospectively examine the recurrence of bleeding symptoms and clinical risk factors for future bleeding in patients with MBD, including patients with bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC).

METHODS

Bleeding symptoms of patients with MBD included in the Vienna Bleeding Biobank were re-evaluated at in-person follow-up visits or by mail.

RESULTS

In total, 392 patients, including 62.8% with BDUC, were investigated for the recurrence of bleeding events. During the follow-up time of median (IQR) 4.3 years (2.6-6.7), 72% of patients had at least 1 bleeding event. Most persistent bleeding manifestations were hematomas (n = 146/245, 59.6%) and bleeding from small wounds (n = 69/141, 48.9%), followed by epistaxis (n = 42/132, 31.8%), oral mucosal bleeding (n = 26/87, 29.9%), and joint bleeding (n = 7/14, 50.0%). Patients with previous postinterventional bleeding had a significantly increased risk for bleeding events after surgery (n = 33/114, 29.0 %) or tooth extraction (n = 16/39, 41.0%). A high bleeding score (OR [95% CI], 1.14 [1.05 to 2.94], per 1 unit) and follow-up time (OR [95% CI], 1.23 [1.12 to 1.36], per 1 year) were independently associated with any bleeding event. For bleeding after hemostatic challenges, blood group O (OR, 3.17 [1.57 to 6.40]), previous postsurgical bleeding (OR, 2.40 [1.06 to 5.46]), and an established diagnosis (OR, 2.07 [1.04 to 4.10]) were independent risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients with MBD have a high risk for recurrent bleeding. This encourages prophylactic hemostatic treatment in patients with MBD, particularly when they face hemostatic challenges.

Outcomes and management of pregnancy in women with bleeding disorder of unknown cause

BACKGROUND

Patients with a bleeding tendency with normal laboratory tests have been described as having an unclassified bleeding disorder or bleeding disorder of unknown cause (BDUC). There are very little data available on how to manage pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES

To study management and outcomes of these patients at four United Kingdom hemophilia comprehensive care centers.

METHODS

Retrospective case note review from 2010-2020.

RESULTS

Sixty deliveries in 36 patients were recorded. The median International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding assessment tool score was 9. In 54 cases for which data were available, the odds ratio for post partum hemorrhage (PPH) was 6.3 for no primary hemostatic prophylaxis versus prophylaxis (95% confidence interval 1.2-34.2, p < .05); 7/9 (78%) versus 16/45 (36%) PPH incidence for the groups, respectively. Hemostatic prophylaxis was with tranexamic acid but some patients received desmopressin or platelet infusions. Secondary PPH was seen in 5/60 (8%) of cases. No neonatal bleeding complications or maternal thromboembolic complications were noted. Avoidance of regional anesthesia and fetal delivery precautions were commonly advised, but in the small number of cases in which they occurred no complications were noted.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite hemostatic prophylaxis PPH was commonly seen. Further prospective studies of BDUC patients are required to determine optimal management in pregnancy as well as determine the pathophysiological basis of bleeding.