Antidepressant drug use and subdural hematoma risk

Is SSRI use a risk factor for intracranial hemorrhage after craniotomy for tumor resection?

Introduction

Prior studies have identified SSRI use as a risk factor for certain adverse bleeding outcomes. However, the risk of significant bleeding from perioperative SSRI use after brain tumor resection remains largely undetermined. This study evaluates if patients taking SSRIs perioperatively have a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) following elective craniotomy for tumor resection.

Methods

Researchers reviewed electronic medical records of patients age 18 and older, who received elective craniotomy for tumor resection between 2010 and 2019. Data collection included subject demographics and relevant medical history. We compared intracranial hemorrhage rates and risks between perioperative SSRI-use cohorts.

Results

Of 1,061 patients, 796 (75%) did not use SSRIs perioperatively while 265 (25%) used SSRIs perioperatively. Among those using perioperative SSRIs, 8 patients (3.0%) experienced an ICH within 1 week and 11 patients (4.2%) had an ICH within 1 month. Similarly, for those who stopped SSRI use perioperatively, we found 31 patients (3.9%) experienced an ICH within 1 week and 40 patients (5.0%) had an ICH within 1 month. Using logistic regression analysis, the relative risk for perioperative SSRI-use and ICH was statistically non-significant at 0.692 (95% CI: 0.260 - 1.839, p = 0.460).

Conclusions

Based on our results, perioperative SSRI use does not appear to result in an increased risk of bleeding within 1 week or month of craniotomy for tumor resection. These results remained consistent when controlled for several additional bleeding comorbidities and demographics between cohorts.

Bleeding in patients on concurrent treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with SSRI or low-dose ASA alone-A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of this study was to systematically review whether concurrent treatment with an SSRI and low-dose ASA increases the risk of bleeding compared with treatment with an SSRI alone or ASA alone.

METHODS

Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Web of Science (from database inception to January 2023) were searched according to PICO: P = patients on treatment with an SSRI and/or low-dose ASA; I = intervention: SSRI + ASA; C = comparison: ASA or SSRI alone; O = outcomes: bleeding/major bleeding. The included articles were assessed using checklists. Studies without major risk of bias formed the basis for the conclusions. Extracted data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE.

RESULTS

Twenty-four studies met the PICO and were included. One randomized and six nonrandomized studies were assessed not to have major risk of bias. Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. ASA only, the pooled hazard ratio of three nonrandomized studies (n = 38 467) was 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.10; 1.70; I2 = 0%), and the pooled odds ratio of two nonrandomized studies (n = 28 296) was 0.95 (0.77; 1.19; I2 = 0%). Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. SSRI only, the randomized controlled trial (n = 1048) reported a hazard ratio of 1.82 (0.66; 5.02), the hazard ratio being 1.60 (1.24; 2.06) for ASA vs. placebo in patients without SSRI treatment; and one nonrandomized controlled study (n = 18 920) reported an incidence rate ratio of 1.03 (0.96; 1.12).

CONCLUSIONS

The compiled evidence was too uncertain to support an interaction when an SSRI is added to low-dose ASA. Low-dose ASA added to an SSRI may imply an increased risk of bleeding primarily attributable to the initiation of ASA.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors as a risk factor for chronic subdural hematoma recurrence: A matter of debate

OBJECTIVES

Chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) is a common central nervous system condition. Recent reports indicate that cSDH affects long-term prognosis; however, its definitive risk factors remain unknown. An antihypertensive drug, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi), can affect vascular permeability and cell proliferation processes, which may suppress the recurrence of cSDH. However, several studies have reported negative results to this effect. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate antihypertensive drugs, including RAASi, as risk factors for recurrent cSDH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 203 consecutive cases of surgically treated cSDH were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical and radiological parameters were compared between the groups with and without cSDH recurrence to identify risk factors.

RESULTS

Of the included cases, 68 (33.5%) used RAASi and 37 (18.2%) developed recurrence within 60 days of surgery. In the multiple logistic regression analysis adjusted by composite risk score, the odds ratios (95% confidence interval) of RAASi, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, β and α blockers, for the recurrent risk of cSDH after surgery were 2.49 (1.16, 5.42), 1.79 (0.84, 3.82), 1.83 (0.62, 4.87), 0.90 (0.28, 2.44), and 0.96 (0.21, 3.20), respectively. The Cox proportional hazard model also demonstrated that RAASi-use was an independent risk factor for cSDH recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

Present series suggests RAASi-use as a risk factor for cSDH recurrence, although the role of RAASi-use in cSDH remains debatable. Further studies for deeper understanding of the microenvironment of hematoma and the surroundings are preferable. (235 words).

Impact of Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors in Hemorrhagic Risk in Anticoagulated Patients Taking Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulants: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies show an increase in hemorrhagic risk related to selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) alone, but also in association with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Non-VKA anticoagulants (NOACs) can be a good substitute to VKAs, but the correlation between them and SSRIs is not well studied. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the risk of major bleeding associated with concomitant use of SSRIs and NOACs.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and PubMed databases were searched, in September 2022, for longitudinal studies evaluating SSRIs' impact on hemorrhagic risk in anticoagulated patients taking NOACs compared with a control group taking non-SSRI medication instead or no antidepressants at all. The outcome of interest was major bleeding. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the ROBINS-I tool. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis. From a population of 279,540 anticoagulated patients taking NOACs, the ones taking SSRIs concomitantly were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (relative risk, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66; I2 = 60%). However, the subgroup analysis of cohort studies did not achieve statistical significance (relative risk, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94-1.66).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings show that SSRIs are associated with a greater hemorrhagic risk in patients anticoagulated with NOACs; however, our confidence is reduced because of nonstatistically significant results from more robust studies, as cohort studies.

Risk for intracranial hemorrhage in individuals after mild traumatic brain injury who are taking serotonergic antidepressants

Background

Serotonergic antidepressants may predispose to bleeding, but little is known of the risk for traumatic intracranial bleeding.

Methods

This was a prospective case-control study of 218 patients with mild traumatic brain injuries (TBI) who were treated at a Finnish tertiary trauma hospital. Injury-related information and clinical findings were prospectively collected in the emergency department. Detailed pre-injury health history was collected from electronic medical records. Information on the use of serotonergic antidepressants was attained from the Finnish national prescription registry. All head CT scans were reviewed by a neuroradiologist based on the Common Data Elements. Cases were patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage on head CT. Controls were patients from the same cohort, but without traumatic intracranial lesions on CT. The proportion with traumatic intracranial bleeding for patients on serotonergic antidepressant medication was compared to the proportion for patients not on serotonergic medication.

Results

The study cohort consisted of 24 cases with traumatic intracranial bleeding and 194 injured controls. The median age of the sample was 70 years (interquartile range = 50-83). One fifth (21.6%) of all the patients were taking a serotonergic antidepressant. Of the patients on an antidepressant, 10.6% (5/47) had an acute hemorrhagic lesion compared to 11.1% (19/171) of those who were not on an antidepressant (p = 0.927). In the regression analysis, traumatic intracranial hemorrhage was not associated with antidepressant use.

Conclusion

Serotonergic antidepressant use was not associated with an increased risk of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage after a mild TBI. The patients in this relatively small cohort were mostly middle-aged and older adults. These factors limit the generalizability of the results in younger patients with mild TBI.

Use of serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants and the risk of bleeding complications in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants are implicated in increasing the risk of bleeding among users; however, the comparative increase in bleeding risk with concurrent antithrombotic therapy (anticoagulant or antiplatelet) remains unclear. As such, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available evidence to evaluate the effects of SRI and the risk of bleeding complications among patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL, and grey literature (Google Scholar and preprint reports) up to 26 November, 2020, with no language restrictions (updated on 31 July 2021). The primary outcome of interest was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intracranial haemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, and any bleeding events. We used a random-effects model meta-analysis to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We did not identify any randomised studies but found 32 non-randomized studies (cohort or case-control) with 1,848,285 patients that fulfilled the study selection criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Among individuals receiving anticoagulants (13 studies), SRI users experienced a statistically higher risk of major bleeding compared to non-SRI users: pooled OR was 1.39 (95% CI, 1.23-1.58; p < .001; moderate heterogeneity). Among individuals receiving antiplatelet therapy (2 studies), SRI users were associated with an increased risk of major bleeding: pooled OR was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.80; p = .001; low heterogeneity). For secondary outcomes, the use of SRI among individuals treated with antithrombotic therapy revealed a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or any bleeding events, whereas only anticoagulant use was illustrated an increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of SRI antidepressants among patients treated with antithrombotic therapy (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet) is associated with a higher risk of bleeding complications, suggesting that caution is warranted in co-prescription.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42018083917KEY MESSAGESIn this meta-analysis of 32 non-randomized studies, SRI users were associated with the risk of bleeding complications compared to non-SRI users, with concurrent antithrombotic use (either anticoagulant or antiplatelet).The risk was consistently elevated across types of bleeding events (major bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, or any bleeding events), whereas only anticoagulant use was associated with intracranial haemorrhage.To promote the rational use of medicines, our findings suggest that the risk-benefit ratio must account for the clear efficacy of SRI against safety concerns in terms of bleeding risks.

The Validity of Intracerebral Hemorrhage Diagnoses in the Danish Patient Registry and the Danish Stroke Registry

Purpose

To establish the validity of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) diagnoses in the Danish Stroke Registry (DSR) and the Danish National Patient Registry (DNPR).

Patients and Methods

Based on discharge summaries and brain imaging reports, we estimated the positive predictive value (PPV) of a first-ever diagnosis code for ICH (ICD-10, code I61) for all patients in the Region of Southern Denmark (1.2 million) during 2009-2017 according to either DNPR or DSR. We estimated PPVs for any non-traumatic ICH (a-ICH) and spontaneous ICH (s-ICH) alone (ie, without underlying structural cause). We also calculated the sensitivity of these diagnoses in each of the registers. Finally, we classified the location of verified s-ICH.

Results

A total of 3,956 patients with ICH diagnosis codes were studied (DSR only: 87; DNPR only: 1,513; both registries: 2,356). In the DSR, the PPVs were 86.5% (95% CI=85.1-87.8) for a-ICH and 81.8% (95% CI=80.2-83.3) for s-ICH. The PPVs in DNPR (discharge code, primary diagnostic position) were 76.2% (95% CI=74.7-77.6) for a-ICH and 70.2% (95% CI=68.6-71.8) for s-ICH. Sensitivity for a-ICH and s-ICH was 76.4% (95% CI=74.8-78.0) and 78.7% (95% CI=77.1-80.2) in DSR, and 87.3% (95% CI=86.0-88.5) and 87.7% (95% CI=86.3-88.9) in DNPR. The location of verified s-ICH was lobar (39%), deep (33.6%), infratentorial (13.2%), large unclassifiable (11%), isolated intraventricular (1.9%), or unclassifiable due to insufficient information (1.3%).

Conclusion

The validity of a-ICH diagnoses is high in both registries. For s-ICH, PPV was higher in DSR, while sensitivity was higher in DNPR. The location of s-ICH was similar to distributions seen in other populations.

Risk of hospitalization from drug-drug interactions in the Elderly: real-world evidence in a large administrative database

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of hospitalization associated with the concomitant prescription of 10 highly prevalent drug-drug interactions (DDIs) among all individuals aged ≥65 residing in Bologna's area, Italy. We used incidence density sampling, and the effect of current (last month) and past (≥30 days before) exposure to DDI was investigated through conditional multivariable logistic regression analysis. Two DDIs were associated with increased hospitalization due to DDI related conditions: ACE-inhibitors/ diuretics plus glucocorticoids (current DDI: OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.94-2.87; past DDI: OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.12-1.65) and antidiabetic therapy plus current use of fluoroquinolones (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.61-11.2). Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) increased the risk of re-bleeding in patients taking Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.24-24.9), while no significant effect was found in those without a history of bleeding episodes. Concomitant prescription of NSAIDs and ACE-inhibitors/diuretics in patients with a history of high-risk conditions was infrequent. Within the pattern of drug prescriptions in the older population of Bologna's area, we distinguished DDIs with actual clinical consequences from others that might be considered generally safe. Observed prescribing habits of clinicians reflect awareness of potential interactions in patients at risk.