Dobesh Paul P, Fermann Gregory J, Christoph Mary J, Koch Bruce, Lesén Eva, Chen Hungta, Lovelace Belinda, Dettling Theresa, Danese Mark, Ulloa Julie, Danese Sherry, Coleman Craig I
University of Nebraska Medical Center, College of Pharmacy, Omaha, Nebraska, USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023 Aug 30;7(6):102192. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102192. eCollection 2023 Aug.
Well-designed studies with sufficient sample size comparing andexanet alfa vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (4F-PCC) in routine clinical practice to evaluate clinical outcomes are limited.
To compare in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeding who were treated with andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC.
An observational cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05548777) was conducted using electronic health records between May 2018 and September 2022 from 354 U.S. hospitals. Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, inpatient admission with diagnosis code D68.32 (bleeding due to extrinsic anticoagulation), a record of use of the factor Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban or apixaban, andexanet alfa or 4F-PCC treatment during index hospitalization, and a documented discharge disposition. Multivariable logistic regression on in-hospital mortality with andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC was performed. The robustness of the results was assessed via a supportive propensity score-weighted logistic regression.
The analysis included 4395 patients (andexanet alfa, = 2122; 4F-PCC, = 2273). There were 1328 patients with intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), 2567 with gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds, and 500 with critical compartment or other bleed types. In the multivariable analysis, odds of in-hospital mortality were 50% lower for andexanet alfa vs 4F-PCC (odds ratio [OR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.39-0.65; < .01) and were consistent for both ICH (OR, 0.55; [0.39-0.76]; < .01) and GI bleeds (OR, 0.49 [0.29-0.81]; = .01). Similar results were obtained from the supporting propensity score-weighted logistic regression analyses.
In this large observational study, treatment with andexanet alfa in patients hospitalized with rivaroxaban- or apixaban-related major bleeds was associated with 50% lower odds of in-hospital mortality than 4F-PCC. The magnitude of the risk reduction was similar in ICH and GI bleeds.
在常规临床实践中,比较安多凝血素α与四因子凝血酶原复合物浓缩剂(4F-PCC)并评估临床结局的设计良好且样本量充足的研究有限。
比较接受安多凝血素α或4F-PCC治疗的因利伐沙班或阿哌沙班相关大出血住院患者的院内死亡率。
使用2018年5月至2022年9月期间来自354家美国医院的电子健康记录进行了一项观察性队列研究(ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT05548777)。纳入标准为年龄≥18岁;因诊断代码D68.32(外源性抗凝导致的出血)住院;有使用Xa因子抑制剂利伐沙班或阿哌沙班的记录;在索引住院期间接受安多凝血素α或4F-PCC治疗;以及有记录的出院处置情况。对安多凝血素α与4F-PCC的院内死亡率进行多变量逻辑回归分析。通过支持性倾向评分加权逻辑回归评估结果的稳健性。
分析纳入4395例患者(安多凝血素α组,n = 2122;4F-PCC组,n = 2273)。有1328例颅内出血(ICH)患者,2567例胃肠道(GI)出血患者,500例严重腔隙或其他出血类型患者。在多变量分析中,安多凝血素α组的院内死亡几率比4F-PCC组低50%(比值比[OR],0.50;95%置信区间[CI],0.39 - 0.65;P <.01),在ICH患者(OR,0.55;[0.39 - 0.76];P <.01)和GI出血患者中(OR,0.49 [0.29 - 0.81];P = .01)也是如此。支持性倾向评分加权逻辑回归分析得出了类似结果。
在这项大型观察性研究中,因利伐沙班或阿哌沙班相关大出血住院的患者接受安多凝血素α治疗的院内死亡几率比接受4F-PCC治疗低50%。在ICH和GI出血患者中,风险降低幅度相似。