The risk of hemorrhagic complications after anticoagulation therapy in trauma patients: A multicenter evaluation

BACKGROUND

The use of anticoagulation therapy (ACT) in trauma patients during the postinjury period presents a challenge given the increased risk of hemorrhage. Guidelines regarding whether and when to initiate ACT are lacking, and as a result, practice patterns vary widely. The purpose of this study is to describe the incidence of hemorrhagic complications in patients who received ACT during their hospitalization, identify risk factors, and characterize the required interventions.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, all trauma admissions at two Level I trauma centers between January 2015 and December 2020 were reviewed. Patients with preexisting ACT use or those who developed a new indication for ACT were included for analysis. Demographic and outcome data were collected for those who received ACT during their admission. Comparisons were then made between the complications and no complications groups. A subgroup analysis was performed for all patients started on ACT within 14 days of injury.

RESULTS

A total of 812 patients were identified as having an indication for ACT, and 442 patients received ACT during the postinjury period. The overall incidence of hemorrhagic complications was 12.7%. Of those who sustained hemorrhagic complications, 18 required procedural intervention. On regression analysis, male sex, severe injuries, and the need for hemorrhage control surgery on arrival were all found to be associated with hemorrhagic complications after the initiation of ACT. Waiting 7 days to 14 days from the time of injury to initiate ACT reduced the odds of complications by 46% and 71%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The use of ACT in trauma during the postinjury period is not without risk. Waiting 7 days to 14 days postinjury might greatly reduce the risk of hemorrhagic complications.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management Study; Level IV.

Cerebral infarction following administration of andexanet alfa for anticoagulant reversal in a patient with traumatic acute subdural hematoma

Background

Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and venous thromboembolism but increase the risk of hemorrhagic complications. If severe bleeding occurs with anticoagulant use, discontinuation and rapid reversal are essential. However, the optimal timing for resuming anticoagulants after using reversal agents remains unclear. Here, we report early cerebral infarction following the use of andexanet alfa (AA), a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors, in a patient with traumatic acute subdural hematoma (ASDH). The possible causes of thromboembolic complication and the optimal timing for anticoagulant resumption are discussed.

Case Description

An 84-year-old woman receiving rivaroxaban for AF presented with impaired consciousness after a head injury. Computed tomography (CT) revealed right ASDH. The patient was administered AA and underwent craniotomy. Although the hematoma was entirely removed, she developed multiple cerebral infarctions 10 h after the surgery. These infarctions were considered cardiogenic cerebral embolisms and rivaroxaban was therefore resumed on the same day. This case indicates the possibility of early cerebral infarction after using a specific reversal agent for factor Xa inhibitors.

Conclusion

Most studies suggest that the safest time for resuming anticoagulants after using reversal agents is between 7 and 12 days. The present case showed that embolic complications may develop much earlier than expected. Early readministration of anticoagulant may allow for adequate prevention of the acute thrombotic syndromes.

Risk factors, management, and outcomes in isolated parafalcine or tentorial subdural hematomas

INTRODUCTION

Indications for hospitalization in patients with parafalcine or tentorial subdural hematomas (SDH) remain unclear. This study derived and validated a clinical decision rule to identify patients at low risk for complications such that hospitalization can be avoided.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective medical record review of adult patients with parafalcine or tentorial SDHs was completed. The primary outcome was significant injury, defined as injury that led to neurosurgery, discharge to another facility, or death. A multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify variables independently associated with the outcome in the derivation cohort. These variables were then validated on a separate cohort from a different institution abstracted without knowledge of the identified variables.

RESULTS

In the derivation cohort, 134 patients with parafalcine/tentorial SDHs were identified. The mean age was 63 ± 19 years with 82 (61%) male. Seventy-one (53%) had significant injuries. Variables independently associated with significant injury included: age over 60, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.46 (95% CI 1.24, 9.62), initial Glasgow Coma Scale score below 15, aOR =7.92 (95% CI 2.78, 22.5), and additional traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) on computerized tomography (CT), aOR =5.97 (95% CI 2.48, 14.4). These three variables had a sensitivity of 71/71 (100%, 95% CI 96, 100%) and specificity of 12/63 (19%, 95% CI 10, 31%). The validation cohort (n = 83) had a mean age of 62 ± 22 years with 50 (60%) male. The three variables had a sensitivity of 36/36 (100%, 95% CI 92, 100%) and specificity of 7/47 (15%, 95% CI 6.2, 28%). All 39 (100%, 95% CI 93, 100%) patients from both cohorts who underwent neurosurgery had additional TBI findings on their CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with parafalcine/tentorial SDHs who are under 60 years with initial GCS scores of 15 and no addition TBIs on CT are at low risk and may not need hospitalization. Furthermore, patients with isolated parafalcine/tentorial SDHs are unlikely to undergo neurosurgery. Prospective, external validation with a larger sample size is now recommended.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Acute Traumatic Subdural Hematoma and Anticoagulation Risk

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulation is used to prevent thromboembolic events. It is a common practice to hold anticoagulation in the first few days following a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with intracranial hemorrhage. However, traumatic subdural hematomas (SDH) are prone to re-hemorrhage long after the trauma. Data are scarce in the literature on the best timing to resume anticoagulation following a TBI.

METHODS

Review of 95 consecutive patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center with a diagnosis of traumatic SDH and requiring anticoagulation. The reasons for anticoagulation, the amount of time without anticoagulation, CT characteristics, and the incidence of thromboembolic events or SDH re-hemorrhage were collected.

RESULTS

41.3% used anticoagulation for coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease, 24% for atrial fibrillation, 12% for cardiac valve replacement, and 12% for venous thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation was held a median of 67 days. For most patients (82.1%), anticoagulation was re-introduced once the SDH had completely resolved. For 17.9%, anticoagulation was restarted while the SDH had not completely resolved. One (1.1%) patient suffered from an atrial clot while anticoagulation was held. For those with residual SDH, 41.2% suffered from a SDH re-hemorrhage and 17.6% required surgery. The risk of re-hemorrhage climbed to 62.5% if the SDH remnant was large.

CONCLUSION

Anticoagulation while there is a residual SDH was associated with a significant risk of re-hemorrhage. This risk should be weighed against the risk of holding anticoagulation.

Restarting and timing of oral anticoagulation after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: a review and summary of ongoing and planned prospective randomized clinical trials

Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients’ high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk–benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials.

Anticoagulation therapy in patients with traumatic brain injury: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter prospective study

BACKGROUND

Trauma care providers often face a dilemma regarding anticoagulation therapy initiation in patients with traumatic brain injury owing to the associated risks of traumatic brain injury progression. The aims of this study were the following: (1) to describe the current practice of anticoagulation therapy in traumatic brain injury patients and their outcomes and (2) to identify factors associated with the progression of traumatic brain injury after anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

In this multicenter prospective observational study, we included computed tomography-proven traumatic brain injury patients who received anticoagulation therapy within 30 days of hospital admission. Our primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant progression of traumatic brain injury after anticoagulation therapy initiation.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients were enrolled more than 22 months. Atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism were the most common pre-injury and postinjury anticoagulation therapy indications, respectively. Overall, 16 patients (9.6%) experienced clinically significant traumatic brain injury progression after anticoagulation therapy, out of which 9 (5.4%) patients subsequently required neurosurgical interventions. Between patients with clinical progression of traumatic brain injury and patients who showed no such progression, there were no significant differences in the baseline demographics and severity of traumatic brain injury. However, anticoagulation therapy was initiated significantly earlier in patients of the deterioration group than those of the no-deterioration group (4.5 days vs 11 days, P = .015). In a multiple logistic regression model, patients who received anticoagulation therapy later after injury had significantly lower risk of clinically significant traumatic brain injury progression (odds ratio: 0.915 for each day, 95% confidence interval: 0.841-0.995, P = .037).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that early anticoagulation therapy is associated with higher risk of traumatic brain injury progression, thus a balance between bleeding and thromboembolic risks should be carefully evaluated in each case before initiating anticoagulation therapy.