Bleeding assessment and bleeding severity in thrombocytopenic patients undergoing invasive procedures

Bleeding assessment following central venous catheter placement, a direct comparison of prospective and retrospective analyses

BACKGROUND

Reported bleeding incidences following central venous catheter (CVC) placement highly depend on methods of bleeding assessment. To determine the direction and magnitude of the bias associated with retrospective data collection, we used data from the PACER randomized controlled trial and a previous retrospective cohort study.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A patient-level comparison of CVC-related bleeding severity was made among (1) the prospectively collected clinical bleeding assessment of the PACER trial, (2) centralized assessment of CVC insertion site photographs, and (3) retrospective chart review. Interrater reliability for photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review was assessed using Cohen's κ. The magnitude of underreporting of both methods compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment at different cutoff points of clinically relevant bleeding was assessed using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Interrater reliability was acceptable for both methods (κ = 0.583 and κ = 0.481 for photographic assessment and retrospective chart review, respectively). Photographic bleeding assessment led to significant underreporting of bleeding complications at all cutoff points. Retrospective chart review led to significant underreporting of minor bleeding complications, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of 0.17 (0.044-0.51) for the cutoff point grade 1 (i.e., self-limiting or requiring at most 20 min of manual compression) or higher. There was no significant underreporting of major bleeding complications with retrospective chart review.

DISCUSSION

Centralized photographic bleeding assessment and retrospective chart review lead to biased bleeding assessment compared to prospective clinical bleeding assessment.

Prophylactic platelet transfusion and risk of bleeding associated with ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with severe thrombocytopenia

BACKGROUND

Reported risk of bleeding complications after central catheter access in patients with thrombocytopenia is highly variable. Current guidelines recommend routine prophylactic platelet (PLT) transfusion before central venous catheter placement in patients with severe thrombocytopenia. Nevertheless, the strength of such recommendations is weak and supported by observational studies including few patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L). This study aims to assess the risk of bleeding complications related to using or not using prophylactic PLT transfusion before ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with very low PLT counts (<20 × 109 /L) subjected to ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization between January 2011 and November 2019 in a university hospital. Bleeding complications were graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess the risk of major and minor bleeding complications comparing patients who did or did not receive prophylactic PLT transfusion for the procedure. Multiple imputation by chained equations was used to handle missing data. A two-tailed p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Among 221 patients with very low PLT counts, 72 received prophylactic PLT transfusions while 149 did not. Baseline characteristics were similar between transfused and nontransfused patients. No major bleeding events were identified, while minor bleeding events were recognized in 35.7% of patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant differences in bleeding complications between patients who received prophylactic PLT transfusions and those who did not (odds ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.45-1.55, p = 0.567). Additional complete case and sensitivity analyses yielded results similar to those of the main analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center retrospective cohort study of ultrasound-guided central venous access in patients with very low PLT counts, no major bleeding was identified, and prophylactic PLT transfusions did not significantly decrease minor bleeding events.

What counts as patient-important upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the ICU? A mixed-methods study protocol of patient and family perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding is conventionally defined as bleeding accompanied by haemodynamic changes, requiring red blood cell transfusions or other invasive interventions. However, it is unclear if this clinical definition reflects patient values and preferences. This protocol describes a study to elicit views from patients and families regarding features, tests, and treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding that are important to them.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a sequential mixed-methods qualitative-dominant multi-centre study with an instrument-building aim. We developed orientation tools and educational materials in partnership with patients and family members, including a slide deck and executive summary. We will invite intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and family members of former ICU patients to participate. Following a virtual interactive presentation, participants will share their perspectives in an interview or focus group. Qualitative data will be analysed using inductive qualitative content analysis, wherein codes will be derived directly from the data rather than using preconceived categories. Concurrent data collection and analysis will occur. Quantitative data will include self-reported demographic characteristics. This study will synthesise the values and perspectives of patients and family members to create a new trial outcome for a randomised trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis. This study is planned for May 2022 to August 2023. The pilot work was completed in Spring 2021.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has ethics approval from McMaster University and the University of Calgary. Findings will be disseminated via manuscript and through incorporation as a secondary trial outcome on stress ulcer prophylaxis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05506150.

Management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring venous access devices: A systematic review and a GAVeCeLT consensus statement

Insertion of venous access devices (VAD) is usually considered a procedure with low risk of bleeding. Nonetheless, insertion of some devices is invasive enough to be associated with bleeding, especially in patients with previous coagulopathy or in treatment with antithrombotic drugs for cardiovascular disease. The current practices of platelet/plasma transfusion in coagulopathic patients and of temporary suspension of the antithrombotic treatment before VAD insertion are based on local policies and are often inadequately supported by evidence, since many of the clinical studies on this topic are not recent and are not of high quality. Furthermore, the protocols of antithrombotic treatment have changed during the last decade, after the introduction of new oral anticoagulant drugs. Though some guidelines address some of these issues in relation with specific procedures (port insertion, etc.), no evidence-based document covering all the aspects of this clinical problem is currently available. Thus, the Italian Group of Venous Access Devices (GAVeCeLT) has decided to develop a consensus on the management of antithrombotic treatment and bleeding disorders in patients requiring VADs. After a systematic review of the available evidence, the panel of the consensus (which included vascular access specialists, surgeons, intensivists, anesthetists, cardiologists, vascular medicine experts, nephrologists, infective disease specialists, and thrombotic disease specialists) has structured the final recommendations as detailed answers to three sets of questions: (1) which is an appropriate classification of VAD-related procedures based on the specific bleeding risk? (2) Which is the appropriate management of the patient with bleeding disorders candidate to VAD insertion/removal? (3) Which is the appropriate management of the patient on antithrombotic treatment candidate to VAD insertion/removal? Only statements reaching a complete agreement were included in the final recommendations, and all recommendations were offered in a clear and synthetic list, so to be easily translated into clinical practice.

Contribution of Coagulopathy on the Risk of Bleeding After Central Venous Catheter Placement in Critically Ill Thrombocytopenic Patients

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Critically ill patients often undergo central venous catheter placement during thrombocytopenia and/or coagulopathy. It is unclear whether severe coagulopathy increases the risk of postprocedural bleeding in critically ill patients with severe thrombocytopenia.

Preventing Thrombohemorrhagic Complications of Heparinized COVID-19 Patients Using Adjunctive Thromboelastography: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

The treatment of COVID-19 patients with heparin is not always effective in preventing thrombotic complications, but can also be associated with bleeding complications, suggesting a balanced approach to anticoagulation is needed. A prior pilot study supported that thromboelastography and conventional coagulation tests could predict hemorrhage in COVID-19 in patients treated with unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin, but did not evaluate the risk of thrombosis.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included 79 severely ill COVID-19 patients anticoagulated with intermediate or therapeutic dose unfractionated heparin. Two stepwise logistic regression models were performed with bleeding or thrombosis as the dependent variable, and thromboelastography parameters and conventional coagulation tests as the independent variables.

RESULTS

Among all 79 patients, 12 (15.2%) had bleeding events, and 20 (25.3%) had thrombosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified a prediction model for bleeding (adjusted R² = 0.787, p < 0.001) comprised of increased reaction time (p = 0.016), decreased fibrinogen (p = 0.006), decreased D-dimer (p = 0.063), and increased activated partial thromboplastin time (p = 0.084). Multivariate analysis of thrombosis identified a weak prediction model (adjusted R² = 0.348, p < 0.001) comprised of increased D-dimer (p < 0.001), decreased reaction time (p = 0.002), increased maximum amplitude (p < 0.001), and decreased alpha angle (p = 0.014). Adjunctive thromboelastography decreased the use of packed red cells (p = 0.031) and fresh frozen plasma (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly, this study demonstrates the need for a precision-based titration strategy of anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Since severely ill COVID-19 patients may switch between thrombotic or hemorrhagic phenotypes or express both simultaneously, institutions may reduce these complications by developing their own titration strategy using daily conventional coagulation tests with adjunctive thromboelastography.