A Retrospective Review of Upper Gastrointestinal Bleed Outcomes During Hospital Admission While on Oral Anticoagulation

Abstract

IntroductionDirect-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are approved for stroke prevention in non-valvular atrial fibrillation and treatment of venous thromboembolism. Most recent guidelines recommend DOACs over warfarin for most diagnoses given their predictable pharmacodynamics, lack of required monitoring, and safety profile. Specific outcomes such as shock, acute renal failure, and blood transfusion requirement while on oral anticoagulation compared to no anticoagulation remain unknown in patients with upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeds. MethodsThis retrospective study used the HCA Healthcare Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW) to analyze 13,440 patients aged >18 years that were admitted with an upper GI bleed from January 2017 to December 2019. The patients were categorized based on oral anticoagulant (i.e. rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran and warfarin). The control group was patients admitted with an upper GI bleed not on oral anticoagulation. We evaluated the severity of upper GI bleeds while on oral anticoagulation based on the outcomes: mortality rate, length of stay, acute renal failure, shock, and need for packed red blood cell transfusions (pRBC). Comorbid conditions assessed were coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), peripheral vascular disease (PVD), tobacco abuse, alcohol abuse, and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Home use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI), aspirin, and P2Y12 inhibitors were also evaluated. ResultsPatients on a DOAC without home PPI have a mortality odds ratio of 3.066 with a confidence interval (CI) greater than 95% (1.48-6.26, p<0.05) compared to patients on a DOAC and home PPI. Patients on warfarin and no home PPI have a mortality odds ratio of 5.55 (95% CI (1.02-30.35), p<0.05) compared to those on warfarin with home PPI use. In the no anticoagulation group, those not on PPI have an odds ratio of 3.28 (95% CI (2.54-4.24), p<0.05) of death compared to home PPI use. There was no statistical difference in mortality between each DOAC and warfarin.There was no difference in the presence of acute renal failure or shock when comparing each DOAC, warfarin, and no medication. For patients presenting with GI bleed, 0.8414 units of pRBC were transfused. Patients not on oral anticoagulation were found to have statistically significant decrease in pRBC transfusion if they did not report alcohol use, CKD, HF, AF, VTE, PVD. Patients on DOACs and alcohol use have an average pRBC transfusion count that is 0.922 units more than those without reported alcohol use (p=0.006). In the warfarin group, there was no statistical significance noted when comparing pRBC transfusions and also when comparing to baseline comorbidities. ConclusionThe retrospective study leads us to conclude that overall, patients taking the DOACs or warfarin had no statistically significant increase in RBC transfusions, length of stay, shock, acute renal failure, or mortality rate compared to patients who were not on oral a...

Direct Acting Oral Anticoagulant vs. Warfarin in the Prevention of Thromboembolism in Patients With Non-valvular Atrial Fibrillation With Valvular Heart Disease—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…However, frequent monitoring and dose adjustment are needed and might be inconvenient and not suitable for the patient (12). Recently, the use of DOACs has been approved for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (2,13). DOACs are preferred in daily practice over Vitamin K Antagonist (VKA) mainly due to their better safety profile and lack of required monitoring (12).…”

“…Thus, long-term efficacy and safety are important to balance the risk and benefit of anticoagulation (1). Due to its more predictable pharmacodynamic, safety profile, and lack of required monitoring, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are more favorable than vitamin K antagonist which needs more routine monitoring (2). However, there is uncertainty as to which anticoagulant should be used in non-valvular AF with valvular heart disease (3).…”