Risk Of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding Research Articles

Risk of Hemorrhoidal Bleeding in Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs)

(1) Background: Lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) accounts for 20% of all gastrointestinal bleeds. LGBI originates in the colon, rectum, and anus, mainly in patients who are receiving antiaggregant or anticoagulant treatment. The major causes are diverticular disease, colitis, hemorrhoids, and angiodysplasia. The literature studies underline that Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs) are effective in reducing the risk of thromboembolic events but are associated with a higher risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), particularly lower hemorrhoid bleeding. (2) Methods: The aim of our review is to revise the risk of hemorrhoid bleeding, pathophysiology, and management in patients taking DOACs in light of the most modern evidence. (3) Conclusions: central to the management of hemorrhoid bleeding in patients receiving DOAC therapy is the consideration of a tailored approach that respects the delicate equilibrium between the need for thromboembolic prophylaxis and the potential for bleeding complications. Cessation of anticoagulation, if clinically feasible, constitutes a fundamental cornerstone in the control of hemorrhage. This pause in therapy aims to mitigate the exacerbation of bleeding risk while offering a window for the implementation of local measures to manage hemorrhoid bleeding.

Safety of early antiplatelet therapy for non-cardioembolic mild stroke patients with thrombocytopenia.

To investigate the safety of early antiplatelet therapy for non-cardioembolic mild stroke patients with thrombocytopenia. Data of acute ischemic stroke patients with baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score ≤3 and a platelet count <100×109/L were obtained from a multicenter register. Those who required anticoagulation or had other contraindications to antiplatelet therapy were excluded. Short-term safety outcomes were in-hospital bleeding events, while the long-term safety outcome was a 1-year all-cause death. The short-term neurological outcomes were evaluated by modified Rankin scale (mRS) score at discharge. A total of 1868 non-cardioembolic mild stroke patients with thrombocytopenia were enrolled. Multivariate regression analyses showed that mono-antiplatelet therapy significantly increased the proportion of mRS score of 0-1 at discharge (OR=1.657, 95%CI: 1.253-2.192, P<0.01) and did not increase the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (OR=2.359, 95%CI: 0.301-18.503, P>0.05), compared with those without antiplatelet therapy. However, dual-antiplatelet therapy did not bring more neurological benefits (OR=0.923, 95%CI: 0.690-1.234, P>0.05), but increased the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (OR=2.837, 95%CI: 1.311-6.136, P<0.01) compared with those with mono-antiplatelet therapy. For patients with platelet counts ≤75×109/L and >90×109/L, antiplatelet therapy significantly improved neurological functional outcomes (both P<0.05). For those with platelet counts (>75-90)×109/L, antiplatelet therapy resulted in a significant improvement of 1-year survival (P<0.05). For patients even with concurrent coagulation abnormalities, mono-antiplatelet therapy did not increase the risk of various types of bleeding (all P>0.05) but improved neurological functional outcomes (all P<0.01). There was no significant difference in the occurrence of bleeding events, 1-year all-cause mortality risk, and neurological functional outcomes between aspirin and clopidogrel (all P>0.05). For non-cardioembolic mild stroke patients with thrombocytopenia, antiplatelet therapy remains a reasonable choice. Mono-antiplatelet therapy has the same efficiency as dual-antiplatelet therapy in neurological outcome improvement with lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding.

Inappropriate use of proton pump inhibitors in hospitalized patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding

ABSTRACT Objectives Use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is a mainstay in treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). However, the beneficial effects of PPIs are not anticipated to extend beyond the duodenum and may actually contribute to the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB). However, in practice, PPIs are often used for inpatients with LGIB where no benefit exists. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed on inpatients during a 2-year period at an urban academic teaching hospital. Inpatients with consults to the gastroenterology (GI) service with confirmed or highly suspected LGIB were included. Outcomes regarding PPI use and the GI consulting service recommendations in these 225 patients were evaluated. Results About 37.8% of patients were started on a PPI during their inpatient course. Of those, 46% patients started on a PPI had no indication for PPI and 85% had no recommendation by the GI consultants to start a PPI. Of the 85 patients started on PPI, the GI consultants recommended stopping it in two (2.3%) patients. Lastly, 20 patients (9%) were discharged on PPI without an indication for PPI. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study that looked at the inappropriate utilization of PPIs in patients admitted for LGIBs utilizing GI consultant recommendations. Given the large proportion of patients started on PPI without a clinical indication and continued at discharge and the paucity of GI recommendations to discontinue inappropriate use, we found that clinical care may be improved with formal GI recommendations regarding use of PPI.

COVID-19 severity is associated with the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding

ObjectiveThe association between the severity of COVID-19 and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether the severity of COVID-19 is a risk factor for GI bleeding.DesignA...

Gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation and anaemia

IntroductionA high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding has been reported with the use of some direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). This risk may be of particular concern in individuals with associated anaemia. The aim of this study is to investigate potential differences in the risks of gastrointestinal bleeding and stroke among the four available DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and moderate or severe anaemia. Materials and methodsAll Danish patients diagnosed with incident AF who had a baseline haemoglobin measurement and subsequently initiated DOAC therapy between 2012 and 2021 were identified through administrative registries. Only patients with moderate or severe anaemia (N = 7269) were included and evaluated regarding the risk of hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding and stroke. Standardized absolute 1-year risks of stroke and gastrointestinal bleeding were calculated from multivariable Cox regression analyses. DOACs were compared pairwise ResultsCompared with apixaban, both dabigatran and rivaroxaban were associated with a significantly increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with standardized 1-year risk ratios of 1.73 (95 % confidence interval [CI], 1.10–2.35) and 1.56 (95 % CI, 1.18–1.93), respectively, while no significant difference was seen in the comparison of apixaban with edoxaban 1.32 (95 % CI, 0.41–2.32). No significant differences in gastrointestinal bleeding were observed with pairwise comparisons of dabigatran, rivaroxaban and edoxaban. Finally, no significant difference in stroke risk among the four DOACs was observed. ConclusionIn AF patients with moderate or severe anaemia, apixaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding than dabigatran and rivaroxaban. No significant difference in stroke risk was observed across all four available DOACs.

Associations between COVID-19 therapies and inpatient gastrointestinal bleeding: A multisite retrospective study.

Little data is available regarding the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in adults hospitalized with COVID-19 infection and the influence of patient comorbidities and demographics, COVID-19 therapies, and typical medications used.In this retrospective study, we utilized the National COVID Cohort Collaborative to investigate the primary outcome of the development of gastrointestinal bleeding in 512 467 hospitalized US adults (age >18 years) within 14 days of a COVID-19 infection and the influence of demographics, comorbidities, and selected medications.Gastrointestinal bleeding developed in 0.44% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Comorbidities associated with gastrointestinal bleeding include peptic ulcer disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 10.2), obesity (aOR 1.27), chronic kidney disease (aOR 1.20), and tobacco use disorder (aOR 1.28). Lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding was seen among women (aOR 0.76), Latinx (aOR 0.85), and vaccinated patients (aOR 0.74). Dexamethasone alone or with remdesivir was associated with lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (aOR 0.69 and aOR 0.83, respectively). Remdesivir monotherapy was associated with upper gastrointestinal bleeding (aOR 1.25). Proton pump inhibitors were more often prescribed in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding, likely representing treatment for gastrointestinal bleeding rather than a risk factor for its development.In adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the use of dexamethasone alone or in combination with remdesivir is negatively associated with gastrointestinal bleeding. Remdesivir monotherapy is associated with increased risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

Effect of dialysis modalities on risk of hospitalization for gastrointestinal bleeding

Dialysis patients are at risk of both thromboembolic and bleeding events, while thromboembolism prevention and treatment may confer a risk of major bleeding. Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a great concern which can result in high subsequent mortality rates. Our object was to clarify whether hemodialysis (HD) and peritoneal dialysis (PD) confer different incidence of GI bleeding, and further assist individualized decision-making on dialysis modalities. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study which included all incident dialysis patients above 18 years old derived from the National Health Insurance database from 1998 to 2013 in Taiwan. 6296 matched pairs of HD and PD patients were identified. A propensity score matching method was used to minimize the selection bias. The adjusted hazard ratio for GI bleeding was 1.13 times higher in the HD group than in the PD group, and data from the unmatched cohort and the stratified analysis led to similar results. Among subgroup analysis, we found that the use of anticoagulants will induce a much higher incidence of GI bleeding in HD patients as compared to in PD patients. We concluded that PD is associated with a lower GI bleeding risk than HD, and is especially preferred when anticoagulation is needed.

Inappropriate Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors Increases Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease.

Antiplatelet drugs, as the cornerstone of the treatment of coronary heart disease, control the progression of the disease, but bring a higher risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. Relevant guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to minimize the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. But for people at low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, the harms associated with routine use of PPIs may far outweigh the benefits. PPIs increase the risk of lower gastrointestinal bleeding, inhibit the effect of antiplatelet drugs, impair vascular endothelial function, meanwhile induce hypomagnesemia, iron deficiency, vitamins D and K deficiency, etc. Eventually, PPIs may lead to an increase in cardiovascular events. However, the situation is that PPIs are often overused. This review elucidates the mechanisms by which PPIs increase cardiovascular events, thereby reminding clinicians to rationally prescribe PPIs.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Between Apixaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and Rivaroxaban Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation : A Multinational Population-Based Cohort Study.

Current guidelines recommend using direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), but head-to-head trial data do not exist to guide the choice of DOAC. To do a large-scale comparison between all DOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban) in routine clinical practice. Multinational population-based cohort study. Five standardized electronic health care databases, which covered 221 million people in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients who were newly diagnosed with AF from 2010 through 2019 and received a new DOAC prescription. Database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and all-cause mortality between DOACs were estimated using a Cox regression model stratified by propensity score and pooled using a random-effects model. A total of 527226 new DOAC users met the inclusion criteria (apixaban, n = 281320; dabigatran, n = 61008; edoxaban, n = 12722; and rivaroxaban, n = 172176). Apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB than use of dabigatran (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94]), edoxaban (HR, 0.77 [CI, 0.66 to 0.91]), or rivaroxaban (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.66 to 0.79]). No substantial differences were observed for other outcomes or DOAC-DOAC comparisons. The results were consistent for patients aged 80 years or older. Consistent associations between lower GIB risk and apixaban versus rivaroxaban were observed among patients receiving the standard dose (HR, 0.72 [CI, 0.64 to 0.82]), those receiving a reduced dose (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.61 to 0.77]), and those with chronic kidney disease (HR, 0.68 [CI, 0.59 to 0.77]). Residual confounding is possible. Among patients with AF, apixaban use was associated with lower risk for GIB and similar rates of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, ICH, and all-cause mortality compared with dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. This finding was consistent for patients aged 80 years or older and those with chronic kidney disease, who are often underrepresented in clinical trials. None.

Protective effect of proton pump inhibitor against gastrointestinal bleeding in patients receiving oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background The concurrent use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) in oral anticoagulant (OAC) treated patients may be associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but evidence is still conflicting according to individual OACs. Purpose We conducted a meta-analysis to estimate the risk of GIB in patients with OAC and PPI co-therapy. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane was performed for studies reporting GIB risk in OAC and PPI co-therapy. Primary outcomes were total GIB and major GIB events. We calculated pooled estimates of GIB risk by a random-effect meta-analysis and reported as odds ratios (OR) and 95% CI. Stratified analyses according to the origin of GIB, ethnic groups, individual OACs, and the presence of underlying GIB risk factors were performed. Results A total of 10 studies (1 randomized controlled study and 9 observational studies) and 1,970,931 patients who received OAC were included. OAC and PPI co-therapy were associated with a lower risk of total GIB, and major GIB; OR (95% CI) was 0.67 (0.62–0.74) for total GIB and 0.68 (0.63–0.75) for major GIB, respectively. Among total GIB, only the risk of upper GIB was lower with OAC and PPI co-therapy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.64–0.70). No difference in the lower risk of primary GIB outcomes of PPI co-therapy was observed between Asians and non-Asians (p-for-difference, total GIB=0.695, major GIB=0.748, respectively) and among individual OACs except for edoxaban. The protective effect of PPI on total GIB was more significant in high-risk patients, defined as those with concurrent medication of antiplatelets or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.52–0.73) and presence of high bleeding risk factors such as previous GIB history, HAS-BLED score ≥3, or underlying gastrointestinal diseases. (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.61–0.70). Conclusion In patients who receive OAC, the use of PPI co-therapy was associated with a lower risk of total GIB and major GIB irrespective of ethnic group and OAC type except for edoxaban. PPI co-therapy can be considered particularly in patients on concomitant NSAID and antiplatelet use or patients with high GIB risk factors. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Comparison of Risk Scores for Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding

Clinical prediction models, or risk scores, can be used to risk stratify patients with lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB), although the most discriminative score is unknown. To identify all LGIB risk scores available and compare their prognostic performance. A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 1, 1990, through August 31, 2021, was conducted. Non-English-language articles were excluded. Observational and interventional studies deriving or validating an LGIB risk score for the prediction of a clinical outcome were included. Studies including patients younger than 16 years or limited to a specific patient population or a specific cause of bleeding were excluded. Two investigators independently screened the studies, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Data were abstracted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline independently by 2 investigators and pooled using random-effects models. Summary diagnostic performance measures (sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC]) determined a priori were calculated for each risk score and outcome combination. A total of 3268 citations were identified, of which 9 studies encompassing 12 independent cohorts and 4 risk scores (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS [nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, no diarrhea, no abdominal tenderness, blood pressure ≤100 mm Hg, antiplatelet drug use (nonaspirin), albumin <3.0 g/dL, disease score ≥2 (according to the Charlson Comorbidity Index), and syncope], and BLEED [ongoing bleeding, low systolic blood pressure, elevated prothrombin time, erratic mental status, and unstable comorbid disease]) were included in the meta-analysis. For the prediction of safe discharge, the AUROC for the Oakland score was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.88). For major bleeding, the AUROC was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.95) for the Oakland score, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.69-0.77) for the Strate score, 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.62) for the NOBLADS score, and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.61-0.69) for the BLEED score. For transfusion, the AUROC was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-1.00) for the Oakland score and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for the NOBLADS score. For hemostasis, the AUROC was 0.36 (95% CI, 0.32-0.40) for the Oakland score, 0.82 (95% CI, 0.79-0.85) for the Strate score, and 0.24 (95% CI, 0.20-0.28) for the NOBLADS score. The Oakland score was the most discriminative LGIB risk score for predicting safe discharge, major bleeding, and need for transfusion, whereas the Strate score was best for predicting need for hemostasis. This study suggests that these scores can be used to predict outcomes from LGIB and guide clinical care accordingly.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Apixaban Versus Rivaroxaban for Management of Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

To compare the efficacy and safety of apixaban and rivaroxaban for the prevention of stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) by way of a meta-analysis informed by real-world evidence. Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies including patients with NVAF on apixaban and rivaroxaban, which reported stroke/systemic embolism and/or major bleeding. Prospero registration number: CRD42021251719. Estimates of relative treatment effect (based on hazard ratios[HRs]) were pooled using the inverse variance method. Fixed-effects and random effect analyses were conducted. Exploratory meta-regression analyses that included study-level covariates were conducted using the metareg (meta-regression) command of Stata Statistical Software: Release 15.1 (College Station, Texas. StataCorp LLC.). Study level covariates explored in the meta-regression analyses were CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores. A total of 10 unique retrospective real-world evidence studies reported comparative estimates for apixaban versus rivaroxaban in patients with NVAF and were included in the meta-analysis. Adjusted HR was 0.88 (95% [confidence interval] CI 0.81 to 0.95), indicating a significantly lower hazard of stroke/systemic embolism associated with apixaban versus rivaroxaban. Pairwise meta-analysis for a major bleeding episode was significantly lower with apixaban compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.69), whereas apixaban was associated with a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with rivaroxaban (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64). In conclusion, this study suggests that patient CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores might be an important factor when selecting which direct oral anticoagulants to use, given the relation these scores have on treatment outcomes. Apixaban is associated with lower rates of both major and gastrointestinal bleeding than rivaroxaban, with no loss of efficacy.

Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding on Treatment With Statin Alone or With Concomitant Administration of Warfarin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 5.3 Million Participants.

This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) with statin monotherapy or with concomitant warfarin use. PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE (via Scopus) were searched for observational studies that reported the risk of GIB in adults on statin therapy or with concomitant warfarin use until August 28, 2021. Observational studies evaluating the risk of GIB in adults (age >18 years) on statin medication or concomitant use with warfarin were included. In all, 14 studies with a total of 5 235 123 participants, reporting 48 677 GIB events (43 734 from statin users and 4943 from users of statin combined with warfarin), were included in the analyses. The pooled analysis revealed no difference in the risk of GIB with statin monotherapy (relative risk [RR]: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42-1.02) or concomitant statin + warfarin use (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.91-1.02). Prior use of statin was not associated with GIB risk (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.63-1.22), whereas a shorter duration of statin use (<5 years) was associated with a lower risk of GIB (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.18-0.97). This analysis provides strong evidence on the association between statin use (with/without warfarin) and risk of GIB. Statin alone or combined with warfarin was not significantly associated with either an increased or decreased risk of GIB. The GIB risk was significantly lower when statins were used for a short duration (<5 years). The putative relationship between statins and GIB in warfarin users warrant further investigation.

The Clinical Impact of Proton Pump Inhibitors When Co-Administered With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Having Acute Myocardial Infarction With Low Risk of Gastrointestinal Bleeding: Insights From the China Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry.

Background: The latest guidelines recommend the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to minimize gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), even though this co-administration may increase the risk of ischemia due to drug interactions. We have noticed that there are few studies conducted on patients with a lower risk of GIB. Therefore, we investigated the clinical effect of co-administration of PPI on DAPT patients with low GIB risk.Methods and Results: From January 2013 to September 2014, a total of 17,274 consecutive patients on DAPT from 108 hospitals with low risk for GIB in the China Acute Myocardial Infarction (CAMI) registry were analyzed. The primary endpoints were GIB and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Multivariate logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the effect of PPIs use. Of the analyzed patients, 66.6% (n = 11,487) were treated with PPIs. PPI use did not show an extra gastrointestinal protective effect in patients with low risk for GIB who were hospitalized and on follow-up after 2 years. Moreover, it was associated with an increased risk of stroke during the 2-year follow-up [hazard ratio (HR) 2.072, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.388–3.091, p = 0.0003] and an increased risk of MI after 6 months (HR 1.580, 95% CI 1.102–2.265, p = 0.0119). We found the same results after propensity score matching.Conclusion: PPI use is prevalent in DAPT patients with low GIB risk. PPIs did not show an extra gastrointestinal protective effect, while an increased risk of stroke was observed during the 2-year follow-up.Clinical Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT01874691.

Impact of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition on morbidity and mortality during long-term continuous-flow left ventricular assist device support: An IMACS report

Inhibition of the renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) improves survival and reduces adverse cardiac events in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but the benefit is not well-defined following left ventricular assist device (LVAD). We analyzed the ISHLT IMACS registry for adults with a primary, continuous-flow LVAD from January 2013 to September 2017 who were alive at postoperative month 3 without a major adverse event, and categorized patients according to treatment an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI/ARB) or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA). Propensity score matching was performed separately for ACEI/ARB vs none (n=4,118 each) and MRA vs none (n=3,892 each). Of 11,494 patients included, 50% were treated with ACEI/ARB and 38% with MRA. Kaplan-Meier survival was significantly better for patients receiving ACEI/ARB (p < 0.001) but not MRA (p=0.31). In Cox proportional hazards analyses adjusted for known predictors of mortality following LVAD, ACEI/ARB use (hazard ratio 0.81 [95% confidence interval 0.71-0.93], p < 0.0001) but not MRA use (hazard ratio 1.03 [95% confidence interval 0.88-1.21], p=0.69) was independently associated with lower mortality. Among patients treated with an ACEI/ARB, there was a significantly lower unadjusted risk of cardiovascular death (p < 0.001), risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p=0.01), and creatinine level (p < 0.001). MRA therapy was associated with lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (p=0.01) but higher risk of hemolysis (p < 0.01). Potential limitations include residual confounding and therapy crossover. These findings suggest a benefit for ACEI/ARB therapy in patients with heart failure after LVAD implantation.

A retrospective cohort study on the risk factors of gastrointestinal bleeding in acute ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation

Introduction. Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a serious complication of stroke causing high morbidity. Atrial fibrillation is associated with both ischemic stroke and GI bleeding due to usage of anticoagulant. The aim of this study is to determine the risk factors of GI bleeding in ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation. Material and methods. All ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation from January 2017 to December 2018 were extracted from our hospital-based stroke registry. We extracted demographical characteristic, subtypes of stroke, and medication history. Results. We found 96 ischemic stroke patients with AF were included in the study. Dyslipidemia (RR: 0.2; 95%CI:0.043-0.939; p = 0.049) and antihyperlipidemic drugs (RR: 0.183; 95%CI: 0.039-0.857; p = 0.022) was associated with lower GI bleeding risk. There were no significant association between other risk factors and GI bleeding incidence Conclusion. Our research shows that dyslipidemia and history of antihyperlipidemic drugs are associated with lower GI bleeding risk in ischemic stroke patients with AF.

Impact of heart failure drug therapy on rates of gastrointestinal bleeding in LVAD recipients: An INTERMACS analysis.

Gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) remains a common and vexing complication of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) support. Recent single-center analyses suggest that ACE inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and digoxin may prevent GIB in LVAD patients. Here we evaluate the effect of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for heart failure (HF) on rates of GIB through analysis of the INTERMACS registry database. Thirteen thousand seven hundred thirty-two patients who received a continuous-flow LVAD and were on antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation with warfarin after 3 months of pump support were included in the analysis. GIB events following implant were assessed based on receipt of ACEi/ARB, beta-blockers (BB), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), amiodarone, digoxin, loop diuretics, and phosphiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5). Backwards stepwise cox regression was used to control for confounding of each drug class on each other, as well as for clinical variables like age, gender, renal function, HF etiology, and device strategy. After 3 months of pump support medications used in LVAD patients were BB (65.0%), ACEi/ARB (51.7%), Amio (43.7%), MRA (37.9%), and loop diuretics (70.1%). In patients with available data, PDE and digoxin use were 18.2% and 16.9%, respectively. The overall incidence of GIB was 19.5% at 2 years of support. After adjustment for other clinical variables, loop diuretics (HR 1.274, p < 0.001) and PDE5 (HR 1.241, p < 0.001) use were associated with increased risk of GIB, while use of BB (HR 0.871, p = 0.006) was associated with lower risk of GIB. ACEi/ARB (HR 1.002, p = 0.971), Amio (HR 1.083, p = 0.106), AA (HR 0.967, p = 0.522) or digoxin (HR 1.087, p = 0.169) did not affect GIB rates on LVAD support (Figure). Despite recent reports, ACEi/ARB, MRA, Amio, and digoxin use does not appear to be associated with GIB during LVAD support. The heightened risk seen in those on loop diuretics may reflect venous congestion in these patients, while antiplatelet effects of PDE5 could drive the higher risk of GIB.

A115 A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF LOWER GASTROINTESTINAL BLEEDING RISK SCORES TO PREDICT ADVERSE OUTCOMES

Abstract Background Acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB) is a common reason for emergency hospitalization. In most patients, bleeding resolves spontaneously but some cases can be fatal. Risk prediction scores can be useful in risk stratifying patients with LGIB at the time of presentation although the most discriminative LGIB risk score is unknown. Aims To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing LGIB risk prediction scores. Methods Following the PRISMA statement, a systematic search for relevant publications after 1990 was conducted in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and CENTRAL electronic databases. We also searched published conference abstracts over the past 5 years. Studies with a primary aim of deriving or validating a LGIB risk score were included. Title and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers followed by full text review and data extraction by both reviewers. Diagnostic classification data for combinations of risk score and clinical outcome were meta-analyzed using a hierarchical summary receiver operator characteristic curve (ROC) model, allowing for random-effects by study, and fixed-effect of the risk score thresholds to influence both sensitivity and specificity. Area under the summary ROC were estimated from model parameters for the pre-specified LGIB risk score thresholds-of-interest. Results Our search identified 2,331 citations for review, of which 100 remained after the title and abstract screen, and 18 ultimately met criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis after full text review. From these, we identified 21 risk prediction scores for LGIB, although only four had sufficient number of papers to meta-analyze (Oakland, Strate, NOBLADS, and BLEED score). For the outcome safe discharge from hospital, the Oakland score had an area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 85.5% (95% CI: 82.1%, 88.3%). For the outcome major bleeding, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 78.9% (95% CI: 75.1%, 82.2%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 74.4% (95% CI: 70.4%, 78.0%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 60.3% (95% CI: 55.9%, 64.5%); and the BLEED score had an AUROC of 65.6% (95% CI: 61.4%, 69.7%). For the outcome, need for hemostasis, the Oakland had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the Strate score had an AUROC of 82.1% (95% CI: 78.5%, 85.2%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 23.9% (95% CI: 20.3%, 27.8%). For the outcome, need for transfusion, the Oakland score had an AUROC of 99.0% (95% CI: 97.7%, 99.6%); the NOBLADS score had an AUROC of 87.7% (95% CI: 84.5%, 90.3%). Conclusions The Oakland score was the most discriminative risk prediction model for safe discharge from hospital, major bleeding, need for hemostasis, and need for transfusion. Funding Agencies None

Comparison Between Non–vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants and Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Asian Individuals With Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism

It is unclear whether the clinical benefits associated with non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are similar to those associated with low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) in Asian individuals with cancer and acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). To compare the risk of recurrent thromboembolic events and bleeding associated with use of a NOAC vs use of the LMWH enoxaparin in Asian individuals with cancer-associated VTE. This cohort study was conducted using data from the Chang Gung Research Database, a multi-institutional electronic medical records database in Taiwan. A cohort of 1109 patients with cancer-associated VTE were identified between January 1, 2012, and January 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through December 2020. Receiving a NOAC (including rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, or dabigatran) or the LMWH enoxaparin. The primary outcomes were composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance baseline covariates. We compared risks of recurrent VTE or major bleeding between groups using Cox proportional hazards models. In addition, we conducted an analysis using a Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard model that considered death as a competing risk. Among 1109 patients with cancer and newly diagnosed VTE, 578 (52.1%) were women and the mean (SD) age at index date was 66.0 (13.0) years; 529 patients (47.7%) received NOACs and 580 patients (52.3%) received the LMWH enoxaparin. Composite recurrent VTE or major bleeding occurred in 75 patients (14.1%) in the NOAC group and 101 patients (17.4%) in the enoxaparin group (weighted hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.07; P = .11). The groups had similar risk of VTE recurrence (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = .05) and major bleeding (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.52-1.24; P = .32) at 12 months of follow-up. However, taking a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with receiving enoxaparin (10 patients [1.9%] vs 41 patients [7.1%]; HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.15-0.59; P < .001). Findings for both primary outcomes were consistent with competing risk analyses (recurrent VTE: HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.45-1.01; P = .05; major bleeding: HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51-1.16; P = .21). This cohort study found that in real-world practice, among Asian patients with cancer-associated VTE, use of a NOAC was associated with a similar risk for recurrent VTE or major bleeding compared with use of the LMWH enoxaparin. Nonetheless, use of a NOAC was associated with a significantly lower rate of gastrointestinal bleeding. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Direct-acting oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in relation to risk of gastrointestinal bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BackgroundDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly used, with studies showing a lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), but overall data for GIB risk remains debatable. The objective was to assess non-fatal and fatal GIB risk in patients on DOACs compared with warfarin from randomized clinical trials (RCTs).MethodsRCTs comparing warfarin and DOACs for various indications (atrial fibrillation, thromboembolism, insertion of mechanical heart valves) were included. The primary endpoint was any GIB event. Other clinical events, such as fatal GIB, and effects of age (≤60 years or older), time in therapeutic range for warfarin, and choice of individual DOACs on GIB risk, were also assessed.Results14 RCTs were included, comprising 87,407 participants (DOACs n=46,223, warfarin control n=41,184). The risk of GIB with DOACs was similar to that of warfarin (relative risk [RR] 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.27). Compared with warfarin, rivaroxaban (RR 1.23, 95%CI 1.03-1.48) and dabigatran (RR 1.38, 95%CI 1.12-1.71) had a higher risk of any GIB, whereas fatal GIB risk was lower in the DOACs group (RR 0.36, 95%CI 0.15-0.82). The risk of DOAC-related fatal GIB was lower in patients aged ≤60 years and in those with poor coagulation control (RR 0.39, 95%CI 0.15-0.98).ConclusionsDOACs compared with warfarin have a lower risk of fatal GIB, especially in those aged <60 years and those with poor coagulation control. However, the risk of GIB was comparable with warfarin and DOACs, except for rivaroxaban and dabigatran.