J F Barletta1, S Hall2, J F Sucher3, J K Dzandu3, M Haley4, A J Mangram5. 1. College of Pharmacy-Glendale, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ, USA. 2. Department of Pharmacy, Honor Health-John C. Lincoln Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 3. Trauma Services and Acute Care Surgery, Honor Health-John C. Lincoln Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. Honor Health-John C. Lincoln Medical Center, 250 E. Dunlap Ave, Phoenix, AZ, 85020, USA. 5. Trauma Services and Acute Care Surgery, Honor Health-John C. Lincoln Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA. Alicia.mangram@honorhealth.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pre-injury oral anticoagulants are associated with worse outcomes in geriatric (G-60) trauma patients, but there are limited data comparing warfarin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We sought to compare outcomes in G-60 trauma patients taking pre-injury DOACs vs. warfarin. METHODS: All trauma patients, age ≥60 who were admitted to the hospital and taking an oral anticoagulant pre-injury were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if their reason for admission was a suicide attempt or penetrating extremity injury. Outcome measures included blood transfusions, hospital LOS, and mortality. A second analysis was performed, whereby patients were matched using ISS and age. RESULTS: There were 3,941 patients identified; 331 had documentation of anticoagulant use, pre-injury (warfarin, n = 237; DOAC, n = 94). Demographics were similar, but ISS [9 (4-13) vs. 8 (4-9), p = .027], initial INR [2.2 (1.8-2.9) vs. 1.2 (1.1-1.5), p < .001], and the use of pharmacologic reversal agents (48 vs. 14%, p < .001) were higher in the warfarin group. There was no difference in the use of blood transfusions (24 vs. 17%, p = .164) or mortality (5.9 vs. 4.3%, p = .789) between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. However, LOS was longer in the warfarin group [5 (3-7.5) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .02]. Matched analysis showed no difference in blood transfusions (23 vs. 17%, p = .276), mortality (2.1 vs. 4.3%, p = .682) or LOS [5 (3-7) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .158] between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pre-injury DOACs are not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to warfarin in G-60 trauma patients. Higher use of pharmacologic reversal agents with warfarin may be related to differences in mechanism of action and effect on INR.
PURPOSE: Pre-injury oral anticoagulants are associated with worse outcomes in geriatric (G-60) traumapatients, but there are limited data comparing warfarin with direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). We sought to compare outcomes in G-60 traumapatients taking pre-injury DOACs vs. warfarin. METHODS: All traumapatients, age ≥60 who were admitted to the hospital and taking an oral anticoagulant pre-injury were retrospectively identified. Patients were excluded if their reason for admission was a suicide attempt or penetrating extremity injury. Outcome measures included blood transfusions, hospital LOS, and mortality. A second analysis was performed, whereby patients were matched using ISS and age. RESULTS: There were 3,941 patients identified; 331 had documentation of anticoagulant use, pre-injury (warfarin, n = 237; DOAC, n = 94). Demographics were similar, but ISS [9 (4-13) vs. 8 (4-9), p = .027], initial INR [2.2 (1.8-2.9) vs. 1.2 (1.1-1.5), p < .001], and the use of pharmacologic reversal agents (48 vs. 14%, p < .001) were higher in the warfarin group. There was no difference in the use of blood transfusions (24 vs. 17%, p = .164) or mortality (5.9 vs. 4.3%, p = .789) between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. However, LOS was longer in the warfarin group [5 (3-7.5) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .02]. Matched analysis showed no difference in blood transfusions (23 vs. 17%, p = .276), mortality (2.1 vs. 4.3%, p = .682) or LOS [5 (3-7) vs. 4 (2-6.3) days, p = .158] between warfarin and DOAC groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pre-injury DOACs are not associated with worse clinical outcomes compared to warfarin in G-60 traumapatients. Higher use of pharmacologic reversal agents with warfarin may be related to differences in mechanism of action and effect on INR.
Entities:
Keywords:
Direct oral anticoagulant; Pre-injury; Trauma; Warfarin
Authors: Jeffrey I Weitz; William Semchuk; Alexander G G Turpie; William D Fisher; Cindy Kong; Antonio Ciaccia; John A Cairns Journal: Clin Ther Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.393
Authors: Jennifer A Frontera; John J Lewin; Alejandro A Rabinstein; Imo P Aisiku; Anne W Alexandrov; Aaron M Cook; Gregory J del Zoppo; Monisha A Kumar; Ellinor I B Peerschke; Michael F Stiefel; Jeanne S Teitelbaum; Katja E Wartenberg; Cindy L Zerfoss Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Rolf Rossaint; Bertil Bouillon; Vladimir Cerny; Timothy J Coats; Jacques Duranteau; Enrique Fernández-Mondéjar; Daniela Filipescu; Beverley J Hunt; Radko Komadina; Giuseppe Nardi; Edmund A M Neugebauer; Yves Ozier; Louis Riddez; Arthur Schultz; Jean-Louis Vincent; Donat R Spahn Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-04-12 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Marion Wiegele; Herbert Schöchl; Alexander Haushofer; Martin Ortler; Johannes Leitgeb; Oskar Kwasny; Ronny Beer; Cihan Ay; Eva Schaden Journal: Crit Care Date: 2019-02-22 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Charlie J Nederpelt; Leon Naar; Karien Meier; Suzanne F M van Wijck; Pieta Krijnen; George C Velmahos; Haytham M A Kaafarani; Martin G Rosenthal; Inger B Schipper Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2022-03-10 Impact factor: 2.374
Authors: Oliver Prexl; Martin Bruckbauer; Wolfgang Voelckel; Oliver Grottke; Martin Ponschab; Marc Maegele; Herbert Schöchl Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.953