Updates in the perioperative and emergency management of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants.

Perioperative management of patients treated with the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants is an ongoing challenge. Due to the lack of good clinical studies involving adequate monitoring and reversal therapies, management requires knowledge and understanding of pharmacokinetics, renal function, drug interactions, and evaluation of the surgical bleeding risk. Consideration of the benefit of reversal of anticoagulation is important and, for some low risk bleeding procedures, it may be in the patient's interest to continue anticoagulation. In case of major intra-operative bleeding in patients likely to have therapeutic or supra-therapeutic levels of anticoagulation, specific reversal agents/antidotes would be of value but are currently lacking. As a consequence, a multimodal approach should be taken which includes the administration of 25 to 50 U/kg 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates or 30 to 50 U/kg activated prothrombin complex concentrate (FEIBA®) in some life-threatening situations. Finally, further studies are needed to clarify the ideal therapeutic intervention.

Consistency of safety and efficacy of new oral anticoagulants across subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation.

AIMS: The well-known limitations of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) led to development of new oral anticoagulants (NOAC) in non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the consistency of treatment effects of NOAC irrespective of age, comorbidities, or prior VKA exposure. METHODS AND RESULTS: All randomized, controlled phase III trials comparing NOAC to VKA up to October 2012 were eligible provided their results (stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) and major bleeding (MB)) were reported according to age (≤ or >75 years), renal function, CHADS2 score, presence of diabetes mellitus or heart failure, prior VKA use or previous cerebrovascular events. Interactions were considered significant at p <0.05. Three studies (50,578 patients) were included, respectively evaluating apixaban, rivaroxaban, and dabigatran versus warfarin. A trend towards interaction with heart failure (p = 0.08) was observed with respect to SSE reduction, this being greater in patients not presenting heart failure (RR = 0.76 [0.67-0.86]) than in those with heart failure (RR = 0.90 [0.78-1.04]); Significant interaction (p = 0.01) with CHADS2 score was observed, NOAC achieving a greater reduction in bleeding risk in patients with a score of 0-1 (RR 0.67 CI 0.57-0.79) than in those with a score ≥2 (RR 0.85 CI 0.74-0.98). Comparison of MB in patients with (RR 0.97 CI 0.79-1.18) and without (RR 0.76 CI 0.65-0.88) diabetes mellitus showed a similar trend (p = 0.06). No other interactions were found. All subgroups derived benefit from NOA in terms of SSE or MB reduction. CONCLUSIONS: NOAC appeared to be more effective and safer than VKA in reducing SSE or MB irrespective of patient comorbidities. Thromboembolism risk, evaluated by CHADS2 score and, to a lesser extent, diabetes mellitus modified the treatment effects of NOAC without complete loss of benefit with respect to MB reduction.

Effects of oral supplementation of iron on hepcidin blood concentrations among non-anaemic female blood donors: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hepcidin is the main hormone that regulates iron balance. Its lowering favours digestive iron absorption in cases of iron deficiency or enhanced erythropoiesis. The careful dosage of this small peptide promises new diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. Its measurement is progressively being validated and now its clinical value must be explored in different physiological situations. Here, we evaluate hepcidin levels among premenopausal female donors with iron deficiency without anaemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a preceding study, a 4-week oral iron treatment (80 mg/day) was administered in a randomized controlled trial (n = 145), in cases of iron deficiency without anaemia after a blood donation. We subsequently measured hepcidin at baseline and after 4 weeks of treatment, using mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Iron supplementation had a significant effect on plasma hepcidin compared to the placebo arm at 4 weeks [+0·29 nm [95% CI: 0·18 to 0·40]). There was a significant correlation between hepcidin and ferritin at baseline (R(2) = 0·121, P < 0·001) and after treatment (R(2) = 0·436, P < 0·001). Hepcidin levels at baseline were not predictive of concentration changes for ferritin or haemoglobin. However, hepcidin levels at 4 weeks were significantly higher (0·79 nm [95% CI: 0·53 to 1·05]) among ferritin responders. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a 4-week oral treatment of iron increased hepcidin blood concentrations in female blood donors with an initial ferritin concentration of less than 30 ng/ml. Apparently, hepcidin cannot serve as a predictor of response to iron treatment but might serve as a marker of the iron repletion needed for erythropoiesis.