Direct oral anticoagulants and delays to hip fracture repair

Current Strategies in Medical Management of the Geriatric Hip Fracture Patient

Orthogeriatric hip fractures have high morbidity and mortality rates. Modern management focuses on multidisciplinary collaboration for prompt surgical stabilization, early mobilization with multimodal pain control to avoid opioid consumption, and an enhanced recovery pathway. Despite these advances, postoperative complications and mortality rates remain higher than age-matched control subjects. The authors of this article represent the orthopaedic, anesthesia, and hospitalist medicine members of a multidisciplinary team at a single, Level 1 trauma center. Our goal was to provide an up-to-date comprehensive review of orthogeriatric hip fracture perioperative management from a multidisciplinary perspective that every orthopaedic surgeon should know.

There is (probably) no (meaningful) difference in (most) outcomes between 'spinal' and 'general' anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery: time to move forward

A meta-analysis influenced by two recent large randomised controlled trials (REGAIN and RAGA) concluded that little, if any, difference in commonly measured outcomes exists between patients administered spinal or general anaesthesia for their hip fracture surgery. We explore whether there is genuinely no difference, or what the methodological problems in research might be that prevent any real difference from being observed. We also discuss the need for greater nuance in future research to determine how anaesthetists might deliver perioperative care towards improving postoperative recovery trajectories in patients following hip fracture.

Regional anaesthesia in patients on antithrombotic drugs: Joint ESAIC/ESRA guidelines

BACKGROUND

Bleeding is a potential complication after neuraxial and peripheral nerve blocks. The risk is increased in patients on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs. This joint guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia aims to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations and suggestions on how to reduce the risk of antithrombotic drug-induced haematoma formation related to the practice of regional anaesthesia and analgesia.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was performed, examining seven drug comparators and 10 types of clinical intervention with the outcome being peripheral and neuraxial haematoma. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used for assessing the methodological quality of the included studies and for formulating recommendations. A Delphi process was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline.

RESULTS

Clinical studies were limited in number and quality and the certainty of evidence was assessed to be GRADE C throughout. Forty clinical practice statements were formulated. Using the Delphi-process, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 57.5% of recommendations and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 42.5%.

DISCUSSION

Specific time intervals should be observed concerning the adminstration of antithrombotic drugs both prior to, and after, neuraxial procedures or those peripheral nerve blocks with higher bleeding risk (deep, noncompressible). These time intervals vary according to the type and dose of anticoagulant drugs, renal function and whether a traumatic puncture has occured. Drug measurements may be used to guide certain time intervals, whilst specific reversal for vitamin K antagonists and dabigatran may also influence these. Ultrasound guidance, drug combinations and bleeding risk scores do not modify the time intervals. In peripheral nerve blocks with low bleeding risk (superficial, compressible), these time intervals do not apply.

CONCLUSION

In patients taking antiplatelet or anticoagulant medications, practitioners must consider the bleeding risk both before and after nerve blockade and during insertion or removal of a catheter. Healthcare teams managing such patients must be aware of the risk and be competent in detecting and managing any possible haematomas.

Reversal of direct oral anticoagulants in adult hip fracture patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasing numbers of patients are taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants at the time of hip fracture. Evidence is limited on how and if the effects of DOAC's should be reversed before surgical fixation. Wide variations in practice exist. We conducted a systematic review to investigate outcomes for three reversal strategies. These were: "watch and wait" (also referred to as "time-reversal"), plasma product reversal and reversal with specific antidotes.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted using multiple databases. Results were obtained for studies directly comparing different DOAC reversal strategies in hip fracture patients and for studies comparing DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (including patients "reversed" using any method and "non-reversed" patients) against matched controls taking either a vitamin-K antagonist or not receiving anticoagulation therapy. This allowed construction of a network meta-analysis to indirectly compare outcomes between "reversed" and "non-reversed" DOAC patients. With respect to "watch and wait"/"time-reversal", a cut-off time to surgery of 36 hours was used to distinguish between "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC patients. The primary outcome was early/inpatient mortality, reported as Odds Ratios (OR).

RESULTS

No studies investigating plasma products or reversal agents specifically in hip fracture patients were obtained. Fourteen studies were suitable for analysis of "watch and wait"/"time- reversal". Two studies directly compared "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC-taking hip fracture patients (58 "time-reversed", 62 "non time-reversed"). From 12 other studies we used indirect comparisons between "time-reversed" and "non time-reversed" DOAC patients (total, 357 "time-reversed", 282 "non time-reversed"). We found no statistically significant differences in mortality outcomes between "time-reversal" and "non time-reversal" (OR 1.48 [95%CI: 0.29-7.53]). We also did not find a statistically significant difference between "time reversal" and "non time-reversal" in terms of blood transfusion requirements (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.42-3.23]). However, several authors described that surgical delay is associated with worse outcomes related to prolonged hospitalisation, and that operating within 36 hours is safe.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggested against "watch and wait" to reverse the DOAC effect in hip fractures. Further work is required to assess the optimal timing for surgery as well as the use of plasma products or specific antidotes in DOAC-taking hip fracture patients.