Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Ernst von Bergmann Hospital, Potsdam, Germany.
BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 Apr 17;24(1):146. doi: 10.1186/s12871-024-02516-7.
The decision to maintain or halt antiplatelet medication in septic patients admitted to intensive care units presents a clinical dilemma. This is due to the necessity to balance the benefits of preventing thromboembolic incidents and leveraging anti-inflammatory properties against the increased risk of bleeding.
This study involves a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study focusing on patients diagnosed with severe sepsis or septic shock. We evaluated the outcomes of 203 patients, examining mortality rates and the requirement for transfusion. The cohort was divided into two groups: those whose antiplatelet therapy was sustained (n = 114) and those in whom it was discontinued (n = 89). To account for potential biases such as indication for antiplatelet therapy, propensity score matching was employed.
Therapy continuation did not significantly alter transfusion requirements (discontinued vs. continued in matched samples: red blood cell concentrates 51.7% vs. 68.3%, p = 0.09; platelet concentrates 21.7% vs. 18.3%, p = 0.82; fresh frozen plasma concentrates 38.3% vs. 33.3%, p = 0.7). 90-day survival was higher within the continued group (30.0% vs. 70.0%; p < 0.001) and the Log-rank test (7-day survivors; p = 0.001) as well as Cox regression (both matched samples) suggested an association between continuation of antiplatelet therapy < 7 days and survival (HR: 0.24, 95%-CI 0.10 to 0.63, p = 0.004). Sepsis severity expressed by the SOFA score did not differ significantly in matched and unmatched patients (both p > 0.05).
The findings suggest that continuing antiplatelet therapy in septic patients admitted to intensive care units could be associated with a significant survival benefit without substantially increasing the need for transfusion. These results highlight the importance of a nuanced approach to managing antiplatelet medication in the context of severe sepsis and septic shock.
在入住重症监护病房的脓毒症患者中,决定继续或停止抗血小板药物治疗存在临床困境。这是因为需要平衡预防血栓栓塞事件和利用抗炎特性的益处,以及增加出血的风险。
本研究是对一项专注于严重脓毒症或脓毒性休克患者的前瞻性队列研究数据的二次分析。我们评估了 203 名患者的结局,检查死亡率和输血需求。该队列分为两组:抗血小板治疗持续组(n=114)和停止组(n=89)。为了考虑抗血小板治疗的适应证等潜在偏差,采用倾向评分匹配。
治疗持续并未显著改变输血需求(匹配样本中停止组与持续组:红细胞浓缩物 51.7%比 68.3%,p=0.09;血小板浓缩物 21.7%比 18.3%,p=0.82;新鲜冰冻血浆浓缩物 38.3%比 33.3%,p=0.7)。持续组 90 天生存率更高(30.0%比 70.0%;p<0.001),Log-rank 检验(7 天幸存者;p=0.001)和 Cox 回归(匹配样本)均表明抗血小板治疗持续时间<7 天与生存率之间存在关联(HR:0.24,95%-CI 0.10 至 0.63,p=0.004)。SOFA 评分表示的脓毒症严重程度在匹配和不匹配患者中无显著差异(均 p>0.05)。
这些发现表明,在入住重症监护病房的脓毒症患者中继续抗血小板治疗可能与显著的生存获益相关,而不会显著增加输血需求。这些结果强调了在严重脓毒症和脓毒性休克背景下,以精细方式管理抗血小板药物的重要性。