Suppr超能文献

比较依诺肝素桥接治疗在 HeartMate II 与 HeartWare HVAD 受者中的结局。

Comparison of Outcomes of Enoxaparin Bridge Therapy in HeartMate II versus HeartWare HVAD Recipients.

机构信息

Department of Pharmacy, 12297NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

Department of Cardiology, 12297NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.

出版信息

J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2021 Sep;26(5):473-479. doi: 10.1177/10742484211006998. Epub 2021 Apr 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of robust data evaluating outcomes of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy in left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of HeartMate II (HM II) and HeartWare HVAD recipients that received therapeutic enoxaparin as "bridge" therapy to describe bleeding and thrombotic events and compare outcomes between devices. The primary endpoint was the incidence of bleeding within 30 days of "bridge" episode. Major bleeding was defined by INTERMACS criteria.

RESULTS

We evaluated 257 "bridge" episodes in 54 patients, 35 with a HM II device and 19 with an HVAD device that underwent 176 and 81 bridging episodes, respectively. The median INR prior to "bridge" was lower in the HM II group compared to the HVAD group (1.5 vs 1.7, < .01), however, there was no difference in the median duration of "bridge" therapy (7 vs 7 days, = .42). There were a total of 30 (12%) bleeding episodes, with the majority in the HM II group vs HVAD (26 [15%] vs 4 [5%], = .02). We observed 3 (1%) thromboembolic events in 2 (4%) patients with an HVAD device. On multivariate analysis, the presence of a HM II device was associated with a 4-fold increased risk of bleeding.

CONCLUSION

We found the use of enoxaparin "bridge" therapy to be associated with a higher incidence of bleeding in patients with a HM II device compared with an HVAD device. Assessment of device- and patient-specific factors should be evaluated to minimize bleeding events.

摘要

背景

目前缺乏评估依诺肝素“桥接”疗法在左心室辅助装置(LVAD)患者中疗效的可靠数据。

方法

我们对接受依诺肝素治疗的 HeartMate II(HM II)和 HeartWare HVAD 患者进行了回顾性研究,以描述出血和血栓事件,并比较两种装置的治疗效果。主要终点是“桥接”期间 30 天内出血的发生率。根据 INTERMACS 标准,主要出血定义为大出血。

结果

我们评估了 54 例患者的 257 例“桥接”事件,其中 35 例使用 HM II 装置,19 例使用 HVAD 装置,分别进行了 176 次和 81 次“桥接”。HM II 组“桥接”前 INR 中位数低于 HVAD 组(1.5 比 1.7, <.01),但“桥接”治疗持续时间中位数无差异(7 天比 7 天, =.42)。共有 30 例(12%)出血事件,HM II 组多于 HVAD 组(26 [15%]比 4 [5%], =.02)。我们观察到 3 例(1%)使用 HVAD 装置的患者发生 3 例(1%)血栓栓塞事件。多变量分析显示,HM II 装置的存在与出血风险增加 4 倍相关。

结论

与 HVAD 装置相比,HM II 装置患者使用依诺肝素“桥接”治疗与更高的出血发生率相关。应评估装置和患者特定因素,以尽量减少出血事件。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验