scholarly journals Safety of ECT in patients receiving an oral anticoagulant

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-258
Author(s):  
Nicolette R. Centanni ◽  
Wendy Y. Craig ◽  
Dena L. Whitesell ◽  
Wesley R. Zemrak ◽  
Stephanie D. Nichols
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Maine Medical ◽  
Complex Population ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Abstract Introduction This study assessed the use, tolerability, and safety of anticoagulation via direct oral anticoagulants or warfarin in medical and psychiatric inpatients receiving ECT. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 32 patients who received ECT while on either a direct oral anticoagulant (9) or warfarin (23) and spanned 247 encounters at Maine Medical Center between December 2012 and December 2018. Data are presented descriptively and analyzed using SPSS version 25 and Microsoft Excel version 2016. Results Among the 247 ECT patient encounters, there were few major adverse effects of ECT in this medically complex population. These adverse effects included headache during 4 encounters (1.6%), respiratory distress during 2 encounters (0.8%) and a cardiovascular event during 1 encounter (0.4%). One patient (3.1%) who was receiving concurrent rivaroxaban and venlafaxine experienced gastrointestinal bleeding that was determined to be unrelated to ECT. One patient on fluoxetine and warfarin experienced hemoptysis thought to be secondary to epistaxis. No other major bleeding or clotting event occurred during an ECT session nor for the duration of the hospitalization. Discussion Direct oral anticoagulants and warfarin appear safe in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation or acute venous thromboembolism who are receiving concomitant ECT. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Management of Oral Anticoagulation Therapy After Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Whether to, When to, and How to Restart an Anticoagulation Therapy

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 1000-1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhiko Kido ◽  
Michael J. Scalese
Keyword(s):  
Gastrointestinal Bleeding ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation ◽  
Retrospective Cohort ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Oral Anticoagulation Therapy ◽  
Retrospective Cohort Studies

Objective: To evaluate current clinical evidence for management of oral anticoagulation therapy after gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with an emphasis on whether to, when to, and how to resume an anticoagulation therapy. Data Sources: Relevant articles from MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases were identified from 1946 through May 20, 2017, using the keywords: gastrointestinal hemorrhage or gastrointestinal bleeding and antithrombotic therapy or anticoagulation therapy or warfarin or dabigatran or rivaroxaban or apixaban or edoxaban.Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language studies assessing management of oral anticoagulation therapy after GIB were evaluated. Data Synthesis: A total of 9 studies were identified. Four retrospective cohort studies showed that resuming anticoagulation therapy was associated with significantly lower rate of thromboembolism (TE) in the general population. Meta-analyses and prospective cohort studies also supported this finding. Two retrospective cohort studies indicated an increase in GIB when anticoagulation reinitiation occurred in less than 7 days without a decrease in TE. Resuming therapy between 7 and 15 days did not demonstrate a significant increase in GIB or TE. A large retrospective study showed that apixaban was associated with the significantly lowest risk of GIB compared with both rivaroxaban and dabigatran. Conclusion: Anticoagulation therapy resumption is recommended, with resumption being considered between 7 and 14 days following GIB regardless of the therapy chosen. Data for warfarin management after GIB should be applied with caution to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) because of the quicker onset and experimental nature of reversal agents. Apixaban may be a preferred option when restarting a DOAC therapy.

A single center retrospective cohort study comparing low-molecular-weight heparins to direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism in patients with cancer – A real world experience

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 793-800 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan K Phelps ◽  
Tracy E Wiczer ◽  
H Paige Erdeljac ◽  
Kelsey R Van Deusen ◽  
Kyle Porter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Recurrent Cancer ◽  
Cancer Associated Thrombosis

Introduction Low-molecular-weight heparins are the standard treatment for cancer-associated thrombosis. Recently, direct oral anticoagulants are a new option for thrombosis treatment; however, data supporting the use of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis are limited. Objectives The primary objective of this study was to determine the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis and major bleeding within 6 months of starting either low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant for treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis. Secondary objectives were to determine the rates of clinically relevant-non-major bleeding and all-cause mortality. Patients/methods This is a retrospective cohort study including adults with cancer-associated thrombosis treated with low-molecular-weight heparin or direct oral anticoagulant between 2010 and 2016 at the Ohio State University. Medical records were reviewed for 6 months after initiation of anticoagulation or until the occurrence of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis, major bleeding, cessation of anticoagulation of interest, or death, whichever occurred first. Results Four hundred and eighty patients were included (290 low-molecular-weight heparin and 190 direct oral anticoagulant). Patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant were found to carry “lower risk” features including cancer with lower VTE risk and lower rate of metastatic disease. After adjustment for baseline differences, there was no significant difference in the rate of recurrent cancer-associated thrombosis (7.2% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 6.3% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.71) or major bleeding (7.6% low-molecular-weight heparin vs 2.6% direct oral anticoagulant, p = 0.08). Conclusions Our study demonstrates that in a select population of cancer patients with VTE, direct oral anticoagulant use can be as effective and safe compared to the standard therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin.

scholarly journals Switching to Another Oral Anticoagulant and Drug Discontinuation Among Elderly Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Different Direct Oral Anticoagulants

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107602961987024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine L. Baker ◽  
Amol D. Dhamane ◽  
Jigar Rajpura ◽  
Jack Mardekian ◽  
Oluwaseyi Dina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Elderly Patients ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Drug Discontinuation ◽  
Research Database ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Study Population

We compared the risks of switching to another oral anticoagulant (OAC) and discontinuation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) among elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) who were prescribed rivaroxaban or dabigatran versus apixaban. Patients (≥65 years of age) with NVAF prescribed DOACs (January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017) were identified from the Humana research database and grouped into DOAC cohorts. Cox regression analyses were used to evaluate whether the risk for switching to another OAC or discontinuing index DOACs differed among cohorts. Of the study population (N = 38 250), 55.9% were prescribed apixaban (mean age: 78.6 years; 49.8% female), 37.3% rivaroxaban (mean age: 77.4 years; 46.7% female), and 6.8% dabigatran (mean age: 77.0 years; 44.0% female). Compared to patients prescribed apixaban, patients prescribed rivaroxaban (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.92-2.25; P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 3.74; 95% CI, 3.35-4.18, P < .001) had a significantly higher risk of switching to another OAC during the follow-up; compared to patients prescribed apixaban, the risks of discontinuation were also higher for patients treated with rivaroxaban (HR: 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13, P < .001) or dabigatran (HR: 1.29; 95% CI, 1.23-1.35, P < .001).

Management of Bleeding Complications in Patients Taking Direct Oral Anticoagulants at a Large Tertiary Academic Medical Center

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 162-167
Author(s):  
Craig A. Stevens ◽  
Heather Dell’Orfano ◽  
David P. Reardon ◽  
Lina Matta ◽  
Bonnie Greenwood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Center ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Bleeding Complications ◽  
Academic Medical

scholarly journals Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Acute Venous Thromboembolism Associated with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 120 (07) ◽  
pp. 1128-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michela Giustozzi ◽  
Giancarlo Agnelli ◽  
Jorge del Toro-Cervera ◽  
Frederikus A. Klok ◽  
Rachel P. Rosovsky ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Factor Xa ◽  
Factor Xa Inhibitors ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Recurrent Vte ◽  
Acute Venous Thromboembolism

Abstract Background International guidelines have endorsed the use of edoxaban or rivaroxaban as an alternative to low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) in cancer patients. Recently, a large randomized controlled trial of apixaban versus dalteparin in patients with cancer was completed. We performed an updated meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus LMWH in patients with cancer-associated VTE. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry) were systematically searched up to March 30, 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing DOACs versus LMWH for the treatment of VTE in patients with cancer. The two coprimary outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding at 6 months. Data were pooled by the Mantel–Haenszel method and compared by relative risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Four randomized controlled studies (2,894 patients) comparing apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban with dalteparin were included in the meta-analysis. Recurrent VTE occurred in 75 of 1,446 patients (5.2%) treated with oral factor Xa inhibitors and in 119 of 1,448 patients (8.2%) treated with LMWH (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.91; I 2, 30%). Major bleeding occurred in 62 (4.3%) and 48 (3.3%) patients receiving oral factor Xa inhibitors or LMWH, respectively (RR 1.31; 95% CI 0.83–2.08; I 2, 23%). Conclusion In patients with cancer-associated VTE, oral factor Xa inhibitors reduced the risk of recurrent VTE without a significantly higher likelihood of major bleeding at 6 months compared with LMWH.

scholarly journals Anticoagulant Utilization and Direct Oral Anticoagulant Prescribing in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Priscilla Shum ◽  
Gordon Klammer ◽  
Dale Toews ◽  
Arden Barry
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Oral Anticoagulant ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Direct Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Renal Dialysis ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Patients Âgés ◽  
Fibrillation Auriculaire

ABSTRACTBackground: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are indicated for prevention of stroke and embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). These agents have been shown to be non-inferior to warfarin in terms of efficacy and safety. However, their uptake in practice has been variable, and prescribed dosages may be inconsistent with manufacturer recommendations.Objectives: To evaluate patterns of oral anticoagulant use in patients with NVAF, including determination of patient characteristics associated with the prescribing of warfarin or DOACs and whether prescribed dosages of DOACs were concordant with manufacturer recommendations.Methods: This retrospective chart review was conducted from April to September 2017 at Abbotsford Regional Hospital, Abbotsford, British Columbia. Patients at least 18 years of age with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of 1 or higher were included. Patients with contraindications to oral anticoagulants, those with reversible atrial fibrillation, and those undergoing renal dialysis were excluded. The dosage of DOACs was categorized as too low, too high, or correct in relation to manufacturer recommendations for the Canadian product. Results: A total of 120 patients were included. At discharge, 83 (69%) of the patients had a prescription for DOAC, 25 (21%) had a prescription for warfarin, and 12 (10%) had no prescription for an oral anticoagulant. There were no statistically significant differences between the warfarin and DOAC groups with respect to patient characteristics. Among the 56 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was indicated, 7 (13%) received a dose that was too low. Among the 23 patients for whom a full DOAC dose was not indicated, 4 (17%) received a dose that was too high. Conclusions: At the study hospital, most patients with NVAF and CHADS-65 score of at least 1 had a discharge prescription for DOAC. Patient characteristics appeared to be similar between the warfarin and DOAC groups. For a notable proportion of patients who received a DOAC, the dosage was incorrect. Appropriate prescribing of oral anticoagulants could be further improved by education for prescribers and involvement of hospital pharmacists.RÉSUMÉContexte : Les anticoagulants oraux directs (AOD) sont indiqués pour prévenir les AVC et les embolies parmi les patients atteints de fibrillation auriculaire non valvulaire (FANV). Il a été démontré que l’efficacité et l’innocuité de ces agents n’étaient pas inférieures à la warfarine. Cependant, leur adoption dans la pratique est inégale, et les doses prescrites peuvent être contraires aux recommandations des fabricants.Objectifs : Évaluation des habitudes d’utilisation des anticoagulants oraux pour les patients atteints de FANV, y compris la définition des caractéristiques des patients associées à la prescription de la warfarine ou des AOD, ainsi que de la conformité des doses prescrites de ces derniers aux recommandations des fabricants.Méthodes : Cet examen rétrospectif des dossiers a été mené d’avril à septembre 2017 à l’Hôpital régional d’Abbotsford à Abbotsford, en Colombie-Britannique. Des patients âgés d’au moins 18 ans, atteints de FANV et ayant un score CHADS-65 d’au moins 1, ont été inclus dans l’étude. Les patients présentant une contre-indication aux anticoagulants oraux, ceux atteints de fibrillation auriculaire réversible et ceux soumis à une dialyse rénale en ont été exclus. La dose d’AOD destinés au marché canadien a été catégorisée comme trop faible, trop élevée ou correcte par rapport aux recommandations du fabricant.Résultats : Cent-vingt patients au total ont participé à l’étude. Au moment du congé, 83 (69 %) d’entre eux avaient une prescription d’AOD, 25 (21 %) avaient une prescription de warfarine et 12 (10 %) n’avaient pas de prescription d’anticoagulant oral. En ce qui concerne les caractéristiques des patients, il n’y avait aucune différence statistique notable entre les groupes ayant reçu une prescription de warfarine et ceux ayant reçu une prescription d’AOD. Des 56 patients qui avaient reçu une indication de dose complète d’AOD, sept (13 %) ont reçu une dose trop faible. Des 23 patients qui n’avaient pas reçu d’indication de dose complète d’AOD, quatre (17 %) ont reçu une dose trop élevée.Conclusions : À l’hôpital où s’est déroulée l’étude, la plupart des patients atteints de FANV et ceux ayant un score CHADS-65 d’au moins 1 recevaient une prescription d’AOD au moment du congé. Les caractéris-tiques des patients semblaient similaires entre les groupes ayant reçu une prescription de warfarine et ceux ayant reçu une prescription d’AOD. La dose d’AOD reçue par une proportion notable de patients était incorrecte. La prescription appropriée d’anticoagulants oraux pourrait encore être améliorée si on sensibilisait les prescripteurs avec la collaboration des pharmaciens d’hôpitaux.   

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document